Sane conversation about abortion

1159 posts / 0 new

Comments

I'm so glad Kerry wrote the last two comments. His relative clarity and heart-felt tone makes all the difference. So, now I have some feeling for what he's about. Whether we can make any progress from here, however, is another question.

Just this, for now: I don't have to look up the words autonomy and Munchausen's, Kerry. I know what they mean.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
and Ulysses doesn't say shit one way or the other

Don't need to. Exposed you I have, ala Yoda.

I really wish Ulysses would make some intelligent comments to back that up.....

Does Santa know?

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:
Quote Ulysses:
Quote Zenzoe: And I was wondering if anybody noticed my little joke... ;-)

Oh, yes, but I "condescended" to ignore it because I wasn't sure how far you folks want to take this. It raises serious questions, not the least of which is whether it's sacred only if pipe is well-laid and the ol' pork sword is fully sheathed, or, can sacredness be reasonably imputed even in cases wherein wall and ceiling damage occurs while beatin' the bishop? As regards stiff socks, the only ones who wear those are the staff of Onan's Carpet Cleaners, but don't trust them. They're the same goofballs who spend their vacations waterskiing with the Ty-D-Bol man.

Are you saying "Sacred" can be imputed to any Original Sinning sperm? How dare you avoid the 'natural law' fact that what I said is to the very special! I can only infer you condition yourself on it as not all sperm are created equal —especially not all "Male Sperm," as written in the Constitution— nor do you condition yourself to say they have an absolute, inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I suppose you think run-of-the-mill sperm are low-class sperm; however, while they may not qualify for the designation "sacred," we should never condescend to ignore their contributions. I know how you 'community interest' people that have perched yourselves as if you are in a 'new paradigm' don't believe that sperm represents any part of the real world--but, not only do I see it that way, there have been Supreme Court judgments that have also applied that point in decisions concerning what adults do in determining when to beat the bishop, when to be fully sheathed, when to squirt to give birth, and even with whom and in what way to waste precious bodily fluids..

Later...

All joking aside, Happy Thanksgiving. Mine will be turkey and pig-less, because in my book, I have an absolute, inalienable, absolute, autonomous right NOT to Feed the Real Pigs of this world.

Well! All Rightie, then! I stand both corrected and enlightened, albeit the latter by dim bulb. Happy Thanksgiving!

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

Yeah, the original meaning of Thanksgiving had to do with cross-cultural survival regardless of the interest of any particular community as, perhaps, a crude and primitive rendition of natural law in a hostile environment being a sort of 'all for one and one for all' despite which 'community' we originated from--which could serve as a model behind a true moral and ethical form of globalism today but for those who promote a particular 'community interest' appear not to be able to stand for it--probably mostly due to their own particular personal investments in such 'community interests' as a claim to a 'new understanding of the human potential'--which I see more like an old understanding of Original Sin politics....against the individual and the interests of unalienable rights to the individual....but, then, the original Thanksgiving meeting had those who helped the other community survive get ousted by the 'community interests' of their descendants against any and all considerations of 'rights of person' (especially of the 'other community'). Maybe Abraham Lincoln saw how that represented the plight of all who were oppressed (due to any opposing 'community interest'--at the time, a 'state's rights issue' against any 'individual rights' claim by slaves--something similarly is creeping back in the political horizon as a 'new priority for community interests'--again, as I see it, against the unalienable individual rights interest--as a real individual rights interest) and such of the oppressed (even though they helped their oppressers) were not seen as their own 'person' (with 'unalienable rights') against such 'community interests'--perhaps that is why Abraham Lincoln made Thanksgiving a national holiday in the middle of the Civil War....realizing the similarities of 'state's rights interests' as the oppressers against the 'individual rights interests' of oppressed as slaves--just as those that became oppressed had originally aided their oppressers in the original Thanksgiving between the Native Americans and the Pilgram settlers so many centuries earlier....

If it's not a mutual investment in the autonomy of each other as the primary 'community interest', I want to have no part of it....it's the only type of 'community' that I want to be a part of....and, while it appears I cannot get that across to the persons on this board who play with the political idea of Original Sin as if its tenets against the moral and ethical nature of individualism in its most intricate political context are not patently oppressive, prejudicial, and condescending, I know what I'm talking about....and I believe I've tried to show that in every post I make concerning 'political rights' in context against any and all 'community interests/standards', otherwise.....as the so-called liberals (or is it 'progressives' as the 'new paradigm' supporters here) on this board cannot even make an intelligent comment about 'autonomy'--which is a very basic concept in all matters of an ethical nature concerning humans--and human politics....what is an appropriate authoritative intervention against another person's will? DRC says it doesn't matter--people 'don't think that way, anyway'--I say it does--and people do think that way (at least thinking individuals do)....as naturally as natural law....

The real practice of medicine has to deal with 'the autonomy of the patient' up against the 'authoritative intervention of medicine' every day (and lawyers have been allowed to, as my mother used to say, 'play two halves against the middle' over this for quite some time--I'll explain that using real world examples if you cannot follow what I'm saying but I'll leave that for another post--actually, much of today's politics plays 'two halves against the middle'--it's the essence of the corporate-government collusion as being applied today as far as I see it--projecting both the interest of individuality and the interest of community upon each respective managing and coordinating party as if that were all there was to either motive)....but, then, I guess that you wouldn't have to know that if you didn't have to deal with it in a personal, intricate manner.....and, then, maybe--just maybe--you could see the difference between 'rights for dogs' and 'rights for humans' when it comes to the legal and social ramifications of every decision you make....

Happy Thanksgiving....

Nonsense.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

With that, I'll be gone for a bit. Carry on....

May we? Really?

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

He seemed to protest my 'autonomy'--but, I didn't care. I called the surgeon on call up and told him the story. As rural areas go, this surgeon knew this patient. 'Yeah,' the surgeon added, 'He is that kind of person. Put him in and I'll take him to the operating room in the morning.' And, that's what we did. After you look up the word 'autonomy', Zenzoe, look up the condition called 'Munchausen's'--the tendency to victimize yourself in order to 'control authority'. What's the solution? This is a much more difficult issue than the accusers seem to understand.....while I knew this person had supposedly bad experiences in his domestic life (his father had apparently sexually abused him as a child--at least, that is what he said--but, his father was still free--no factual evidence and all), was this person's behavior 'solving it'? How is the role of 'autonomy' up against 'authoritative interventions' to be considered in a society that mouths a priority in 'freedom'? Liars and hypocrites that have nothing directly to do with it say one thing--those that have to directly handle the issues may say another....

Later....

Yup. There's a great example of Lib "compassion." It just reinforces my belief he's not a doctor. On the off-chance he is, it's a sad and tragic example of a licensed clown in a white coat kicking somebody with psychological problems down the line because he simply finds it distasteful to deal with them. Some "healer." He's living up to his Hypocritic Oath. It's the kind of travesty that would be the norm if the Libs were to run society and their agenda was carried out to its ultimate conclusion.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
D_NATURED, abortions are legal beyond the zygote stage--which doesn't last long compared to the length of the pregnancy. The real question being ignored here for the benefit of 'conditional interests in community' is do you believe in anything like an absolute right (against any and all community interests/standards), does the right to life fit into that (as well as the right to abort), and, if so, when?

Yes, abortions are legal well beyond the zygote stage. I'm sorry if I confused my position by talking so much about zygotes. I thought my "tad pole" comments were enough indication that I didn't refer exclusively to zygotes in my argument.

The main point is that, in my opinion, there should be ABSOLUTELY no point when the life within a woman is more important than the will of that woman upon which it relies...NONE! I would rather see viable fetuses exterminated by the score through a process of dismemberment and suction than to see a single woman have her body treated like a rental car by society. Being in possession of a womb does not make a person any less deserving the full assortment of human rights. One of those human rights- and you can phrase it any way you like- should be the freedom from having to have your own body used to sustain anyone else's body against your will. It's one thing to donate a kidney, it's quite another for society to say that you must donate it. It's one thing for a woman to use her body to create a baby, it's another for society to say she must. The whole concept of community standards is irrelevant. No community should care more, or force a woman to care more, for the life within than the one without. If she does, that is her own physical and spiritual choice. We should respect her decision either way. It's not the community's choice.

So, community standards only apply to things that are debatable. Whether or not women should lose their right-at any time- to determine what and whom grows within their body should not even be up for discussion. Now, I know there are communities that attempt to restrict the rights of women to make their own choices. That, however, is the tyranny I spoke of because it forces them to risk death in order to determine their own physical existence. Your arguments attempt to find a spark of doubt where there is none. Life is not a beating heart and rights aren't just for when they are convenient to the existing religious or community standard. There ARE absolutes. The absolute here is that women are female human beings and the magical qualities of procreation they posses are not an excuse to deny them the freedom from physical oppression that every other male human being enjoys.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote Ulysses:
Quote Zenzoe:
Quote Ulysses:
Quote Zenzoe: And I was wondering if anybody noticed my little joke... ;-)

Oh, yes, but I "condescended" to ignore it because I wasn't sure how far you folks want to take this. It raises serious questions, not the least of which is whether it's sacred only if pipe is well-laid and the ol' pork sword is fully sheathed, or, can sacredness be reasonably imputed even in cases wherein wall and ceiling damage occurs while beatin' the bishop? As regards stiff socks, the only ones who wear those are the staff of Onan's Carpet Cleaners, but don't trust them. They're the same goofballs who spend their vacations waterskiing with the Ty-D-Bol man.

Are you saying "Sacred" can be imputed to any Original Sinning sperm? How dare you avoid the 'natural law' fact that what I said is to the very special! I can only infer you condition yourself on it as not all sperm are created equal —especially not all "Male Sperm," as written in the Constitution— nor do you condition yourself to say they have an absolute, inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I suppose you think run-of-the-mill sperm are low-class sperm; however, while they may not qualify for the designation "sacred," we should never condescend to ignore their contributions. I know how you 'community interest' people that have perched yourselves as if you are in a 'new paradigm' don't believe that sperm represents any part of the real world--but, not only do I see it that way, there have been Supreme Court judgments that have also applied that point in decisions concerning what adults do in determining when to beat the bishop, when to be fully sheathed, when to squirt to give birth, and even with whom and in what way to waste precious bodily fluids..

Later...

All joking aside, Happy Thanksgiving. Mine will be turkey and pig-less, because in my book, I have an absolute, inalienable, absolute, autonomous right NOT to Feed the Real Pigs of this world.

Well! All Rightie, then! I stand both corrected and enlightened, albeit the latter by dim bulb. Happy Thanksgiving!

Whoa there, Mr. Ed! My bulb, as dim as it was, nevertheless allowed me to see your playfullness and mocking humor. Apparently, your bulb was so dim as to miss the same in mine. So, to which “dim bulb” do you refer—yours or mine? Tsk tsk tsk...

With regard to Kerry’s stories, one must give respect where an honest revelation of human frailty appears. When Kerry admitted to having abandoned a patient over the patient’s stupid, swaggering threats, I had to cringe, but at the same time take care: though Kerry felt justified in his response to that patient, perhaps arrogantly, he nevertheless made himself vulnerable to us by telling the story at all. That’s something I appreciate, mainly because I too have done things I’ve come to regret later for their, say, lack of ethical purity, but especially for the damage I may have caused others. We’ve all made bad choices, eh?

So, Kerry, I can understand your frustration with the patient in question, as I can understand the sense that doctors get squeezed from all sides, a reality that has been underneath all your questions and your quandary within this discussion, or so it would appear. However, I do think the Hippocratic Oath has something to say to you now, by way of reminder: “I will remember that I remain a member of society with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.”

There, the oath not only reminds you of your place in community — “a member of society”— but it also reminds you of your obligation to treat everyone, whether they are nice, sane people or not: “...as well as the infirm.” Your patient was infirm, clearly. While I wasn’t there to witness the depth of his gall and offensiveness, I do believe it may have been possible for you to let it roll off with humor, or by saying, “Okay, feel free to sue me, but you’re going to have to wait until I’m done here.”

As for Kerry’s perpetual preoccupation with the absolute, with the notion of “unalienable rights,” a mention of one distinction might be in order, according to my understanding: The Declaration of Independence, dated July 4, 1776, was written in a revolutionary spirit by revolutionaries to, and about, the King of England; that is, it insisted on autonomous, inalienable rights by “the People” to the authority, the Empire of England. However, by the time the Bill of Rights came along on December 15, 1791, its framers, represented by James Madison, had become the authority themselves, representing the new "State" of America. Thus what had been “unalienable rights” of revolutionaries became fundamental rights granted by a government, rights which could be forfeited —alienated— lost, “violated,” where the state deemed it reasonable, where the state could use the rule of law to do so.

Kerry’s apparent fears about community, or the “greatest good,” i.e., that it means the obliteration of individual autonomy and freedom, cannot be justified. His statement that if individual rights are not inalienable, they don’t exist at all, also fails scrutiny. If he insists on rejecting community, where individual rights sometimes have to be renounced for the sake of other’s rights, by saying liberty is meaningless there, he has missed the complexity. Freedom is still free, even if it derives from compromises between opposing interests, or if it is based on the greatest good.

A world view that assumes that those who value community do not value individuality is just plain wrong. Individuality, that each of us is a unique person with fundamental rights, does not disappear where the greatest good is a consideration. For example: The members of a surgical team are no less individuals for their cooperation at the task at hand, the saving of a life. Each nurse, each doctor, is an autonomous person even while acting within the team for a good purpose.

Also this, to the subject at hand: The idea of an unborn child having autonomy fails scrutiny too: No unborn child made an autonomous choice to be conceived, never asked to be born, never gave permission to be created. As I see it, therefore, the autonomy of personhood doesn’t kick in until birth, and quite awhile after that, to boot.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Since when is all life considered sacred in the United States?

If someone is trying to break into my house I have full legal right to shoot them dead without knowing whether this person was a threat to me or my property. You will find this right very heavily defended by conservatives and the GOP.

If a woman has a fear that a fetus in the womb may be a threat to her or her future she is a criminal of the worst kind if she even thinks of aborting.

I believe that abortions would not even be an issue if men were able to get pregnant. That speaks for itself.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:

Since when is all life considered sacred in the United States?

If someone is trying to break into my house I have full legal right to shoot them dead without knowing whether this person was a threat to me or my property. You will find this right very heavily defended by conservatives and the GOP.

If a woman has a fear that a fetus in the womb may be a threat to her or her future she is a criminal of the worst kind if she even thinks of aborting.

I believe that abortions would not even be an issue if men were able to get pregnant. That speaks for itself.

I said something similar back on page 4: "a rapist entering my home inspires an absolute in me—his "right to life" becomes nothing to me, and I will kill him gladly if I get the chance. A rapist, by virtue of his criminal intent, has relinquished any right to his life. But I have an absolute right —from every perspective, moral, legal, individual or civic— to defend my own life and happiness from threats against it. Not everyone feels that way. Some people would rather be non-violent and never kill. That's not me.

If Kerry wants life to be an absolute, inalienable right for a fetus, so that once a fetus reaches viability its life deserves equal consideration beside that of the mother, then we have a conflict, as D_NATURED has rightly pointed out. So this is the reason I tend not to put fetal life in the absolute category. I tend to put a woman with an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy in the same predicament as one whose home has been invaded by an intruder: She has a right to defend her life against such a threat to her life, liberty and pursuit of happiness; it matters not a jot to me that the fetus itself may be "innocent."

But don't expect Kerry to grok the points made there.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Bush_Wacker:

If a woman has a fear that a fetus in the womb may be a threat to her or her future she is a criminal of the worst kind if she even thinks of aborting.

Again, why is adoption not even on the radar for liberals? Why is thread now on page 5 without even mentioning it once?

Calperson's picture
Calperson
Joined:
Dec. 11, 2010 10:21 am
Quote Calperson:
Quote Bush_Wacker:

If a woman has a fear that a fetus in the womb may be a threat to her or her future she is a criminal of the worst kind if she even thinks of aborting.

Again, why is adoption not even on the radar for liberals? Why is thread now on page 5 without even mentioning it once?

What good does adoption do if the woman dies giving birth? Thus the threat to her and her future.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote Calperson:
Quote Bush_Wacker:

If a woman has a fear that a fetus in the womb may be a threat to her or her future she is a criminal of the worst kind if she even thinks of aborting.

Again, why is adoption not even on the radar for liberals? Why is thread now on page 5 without even mentioning it once?

Adoption IS on the radar, Cal, but you are making individual abortions the greater moral issue and not society's restricting the right of women to physical priority. Fetuses never being able to grow up, at the discretion of their only possible path to humanity-the mother and only person who SHOULD be able to make that choice- is a small thing when weighed against the tyranny of government control of female reproductive freedom. I thought you conservatives understood the whole government interference thing.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote Calperson:

Again, why is adoption not even on the radar for liberals? Why is thread now on page 5 without even mentioning it once?

Adoption is understood as one of the options under the concept of "pro-choice." Parenthood, adoption, abortion—a woman, families, a couple, each can choose among the options, according the best interest of all involved, but, most importantly, according to the mother's best interest. It's her body, not your body, not the government's body, not the man's body. Hers.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:
Quote Calperson:

Again, why is adoption not even on the radar for liberals? Why is thread now on page 5 without even mentioning it once?

Adoption is understood as one of the options under the concept of "pro-choice." Parenthood, adoption, abortion—a woman, families, a couple, each can choose among the options, according the best interest of all involved, but, most importantly, according to the mother's best interest. It's her body, not your body, not the government's body, not the man's body. Hers.

Ah, yes and given that we liberals are scientific, lets deconstruct and investigate the term "hers". Would it be fair to say what it is that seperates each and every one of us, is our unique individual DNA structure or signature? Is not murder distilled scientifically one massive organism with one DNA structure extinguishing the life force of another DNA structure? Let us have this conversation scientifically,

What actually is "hers"?

Calperson's picture
Calperson
Joined:
Dec. 11, 2010 10:21 am
Quote Calperson:
Quote Zenzoe:
Quote Calperson:

Again, why is adoption not even on the radar for liberals? Why is thread now on page 5 without even mentioning it once?

Adoption is understood as one of the options under the concept of "pro-choice." Parenthood, adoption, abortion—a woman, families, a couple, each can choose among the options, according the best interest of all involved, but, most importantly, according to the mother's best interest. It's her body, not your body, not the government's body, not the man's body. Hers.

Ah, yes and given that we liberals are scientific, lets deconstruct and investigate the term "hers". Would it be fair to say what it is that seperates each and every one of us, is our unique individual DNA structure or signature? Is not murder distilled scientifically one massive organism with one DNA structure extinguishing the life force of another DNA structure? Let us have this conversation scientifically,

What actually is "hers"?

"...we liberals?" You're no liberal, CalPoison. "Seperates?" You know, if you right-click your mouse, you can initiate spell-check.

Anyway, you haven't been paying much attention, have you? Look, and try to comprehend: A rapist entering my home inspires an absolute in me—his "right to life" becomes nothing to me, and I will kill him gladly if I get the chance. A rapist ... has relinquished any right to his life. But I have an absolute right —from every perspective, moral, legal, individual or civic— to defend my own life and happiness from threats against it...

...I tend to put a woman with an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy in the same predicament as one whose home has been invaded by an intruder: She has a right to defend her life against such a threat to her life, liberty and pursuit of happiness."

You can go on all day long about DNA. The point is not that a fetus has unique, individual DNA structure; it has it. But, what it may be too is a threat to a woman's life and happiness. Among a pregnant woman's choices is her rightful, lawful choice, to defend her life in the face of such a dire threat.

To be "murder" an action must involve the malicious killing of an innocent, BORN human life which is a person. To be a person means having consciousness, self-awareness, and memory.

We don't abort the unborn after viability, unless a dire, health threat exists for the woman; that's the law, as I understand it. In my state of California, after viability, abortion is regulated.


Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Calperson:
Quote Zenzoe:
Quote Calperson:

Again, why is adoption not even on the radar for liberals? Why is thread now on page 5 without even mentioning it once?

Adoption is understood as one of the options under the concept of "pro-choice." Parenthood, adoption, abortion—a woman, families, a couple, each can choose among the options, according the best interest of all involved, but, most importantly, according to the mother's best interest. It's her body, not your body, not the government's body, not the man's body. Hers.

Ah, yes and given that we liberals are scientific, lets deconstruct and investigate the term "hers". Would it be fair to say what it is that seperates each and every one of us, is our unique individual DNA structure or signature? Is not murder distilled scientifically one massive organism with one DNA structure extinguishing the life force of another DNA structure? Let us have this conversation scientifically,

What actually is "hers"?

What is hers is the womb in which the fetus resides uninvited, the nourishment upon which it feeds without permission and the care and protection which the woman chooses to or not to provide to the fetus. To imply that it is murder any time one being extinguishes the life force of another is a gross exageration. Do you feel the fetus has a right to exist at a woman's expense? Does the woman have the right to exist too, or does she give up that right by having sinful sex?

BTW, is it murder when a woman dies during childbirth? Shouldn't your "scientific", liberal police be ready with a set of tiny hand cuffs for that contingency? Imagine that, the first act of a person's life is the felonious murder of their own mother by fetal assault (or whatever term you and your scientific liberals decide).They will have to deliver the fetus hands first so they can get it cuffed up before it has an opportunity to harm anyone else. In fact, why cuff it at all? The dead mother is proof enough that the fetus has acted irresponsibly by not spontaneously aborting itself at the moment it realized the mother was in danger. Wanton criminals like that, even ones who only weigh seven pounds and can't walk or control their necks, don't deserve our pity. We should just let it find its own way out of the womb...if it can. if it dies in the struggle, who cares? What we don't need is a bunch of murderers being brought into the world.The American Association of Scientific Liberals would go nuts!

Thanks for interjecting such an intelligent point, Cal. Only when scientific liberals like yourself speak up will the scientific liberal establishment begin to abandon their long-held policy of allowing both fetus-cide and matricide to go unpunished. In fact, the sooner we can begin putting law enforcement officials IN the actual womb-to preserve the peace- the safer we'll all be. Yeah, man, thanks for that. These conservatives (you know who they are), who don't even want to have these scientific conversations in the first place, just don't understand the harm that these women and fetuses are doing to each other. When will justice prevail?

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote Zenzoe:
Quote Ulysses:
Quote Zenzoe:
Quote Ulysses:

[quote=Zenzoe] And I was wondering if anybody noticed my little joke... ;-)

Oh, yes, but I "condescended" to ignore it because I wasn't sure how far you folks want to take this. It raises serious questions, not the least of which is whether it's sacred only if pipe is well-laid and the ol' pork sword is fully sheathed, or, can sacredness be reasonably imputed even in cases wherein wall and ceiling damage occurs while beatin' the bishop? As regards stiff socks, the only ones who wear those are the staff of Onan's Carpet Cleaners, but don't trust them. They're the same goofballs who spend their vacations waterskiing with the Ty-D-Bol man.

Are you saying "Sacred" can be imputed to any Original Sinning sperm? How dare you avoid the 'natural law' fact that what I said is to the very special! I can only infer you condition yourself on it as not all sperm are created equal —especially not all "Male Sperm," as written in the Constitution— nor do you condition yourself to say they have an absolute, inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I suppose you think run-of-the-mill sperm are low-class sperm; however, while they may not qualify for the designation "sacred," we should never condescend to ignore their contributions. I know how you 'community interest' people that have perched yourselves as if you are in a 'new paradigm' don't believe that sperm represents any part of the real world--but, not only do I see it that way, there have been Supreme Court judgments that have also applied that point in decisions concerning what adults do in determining when to beat the bishop, when to be fully sheathed, when to squirt to give birth, and even with whom and in what way to waste precious bodily fluids..

Later...

All joking aside, Happy Thanksgiving. Mine will be turkey and pig-less, because in my book, I have an absolute, inalienable, absolute, autonomous right NOT to Feed the Real Pigs of this world.

Well! All Rightie, then! I stand both corrected and enlightened, albeit the latter by dim bulb. Happy Thanksgiving!

Whoa there, Mr. Ed! My bulb, as dim as it was, nevertheless allowed me to see your playfullness and mocking humor. Apparently, your bulb was so dim as to miss the same in mine. So, to which “dim bulb” do you refer—yours or mine? Tsk tsk tsk...

My own, as in having perceived it in a manner similar to "...through a glass, darkly."

Kerry’s apparent fears about community, or the “greatest good,” i.e., that it means the obliteration of individual autonomy and freedom, cannot be justified. His statement that if individual rights are not inalienable, they don’t exist at all, also fails scrutiny. If he insists on rejecting community, where individual rights sometimes have to be renounced for the sake of other’s rights, by saying liberty is meaningless there, he has missed the complexity. Freedom is still free, even if it derives from compromises between opposing interests, or if it is based on the greatest good.

He has never understood that "community" is the macrocosm, or infrastructure, without which any microcosm of individual rights and their exercise, is impossible. It's for that reason that Libertarianism is barbarism. Without community, everybody's on their own and the law of the jungle kicks in, but they'll never acknowledge that. Representative government is far from perfect, but it is, so far, the best of a plethora of imperfect alternatives to anarchy, chaos, and/or barbarism. It is such because its laws are made mostly by consensus, crooked, bought politicians and presidential election fixing notwithstanding. So, without the overarching, infrastructural umbrella of law, made and enforced by duly authorized representatives of the people, nobody can be free to individually exercise "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," because, in such a case, nobody would dare leave his/her house unarmed or without armed escort. "Community," imperfect as it is, is the macrocosmic structure that makes it possible for individual rights to exist. They can't be exercised in a chaotic or anarchic vacuum without some kind of violent supporting mechanism. It's beyond me how anybody educated at the level of a doctor, all of whom had to take at least a rudimentary undergraduate college core of arts, letters, and humanities, could fail to see this kind of basic stuff or have such a non-inquisitive mind as to fail to seek intelligent answers to it, unless of course, as I suspect in his case, he's never engaged in real dialectic intellectual activity, but, rather, only sought answers which will provide a priori support for his philosophically tenacious opinions.

Community, in the form of representative government and the laws and administrative code it provides, is the sole guarantor of any individual's right to seek "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Secondary to community in that supporting role are the communal and consensual sociological mores, behavior patterns, and social norms unofficially observed by the individuals in any socioeconomic grouping in order to get along with their peers. Without the latter, everybody would literally be at everybody else's throats all the time, e.g., it's not acceptable to cut into public queues to get tickets for a performance or athletic event, upon pain of somebody kicking your ass, even though it's not technically illegal to cut into such a line. The same applies to more serious values, such as how other people should behave in opting yea or nay for abortions. Why this "Kerry" deliberately chooses to address these things or fails to understand them, if he is indeed intelligent enough to be a doctor, is beyond me. If he's pressed about it, he answers questions with questions and then claims he doesn't do that.

A world view that assumes that those who value community do not value individuality is just plain wrong. Individuality, that each of us is a unique person with fundamental rights, does not disappear where the greatest good is a consideration. For example: The members of a surgical team are no less individuals for their cooperation at the task at hand, the saving of a life. Each nurse, each doctor, is an autonomous person even while acting within the team for a good purpose.

He cannot understand the differences between belief in community and surrender to groupthink, and that's one reason I can't stomach his arguments. It's an overly simplistic position, the militant support of which, in my opinion, makes him a simpleton. It's also a tired old Libertarian saw of an argument. As soon as you discuss any of this stuff with any Lib, they trot it out.

Also this, to the subject at hand: The idea of an unborn child having autonomy fails scrutiny too: No unborn child made an autonomous choice to be conceived, never asked to be born, never gave permission to be created. As I see it, therefore, the autonomy of personhood doesn’t kick in until birth, and quite awhile after that, to boot.

If the autonomy of personhood were instant and perpetual, we would allow children to do whatever they want, whenever they want.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Ulysses:
Quote Zenzoe:
Quote Ulysses:
Quote Zenzoe:

[quote=Ulysses]

[quote=Zenzoe] And I was wondering if anybody noticed my little joke... ;-)

Oh, yes, but I "condescended" to ignore it because I wasn't sure how far you folks want to take this. It raises serious questions, not the least of which is whether it's sacred only if pipe is well-laid and the ol' pork sword is fully sheathed, or, can sacredness be reasonably imputed even in cases wherein wall and ceiling damage occurs while beatin' the bishop? As regards stiff socks, the only ones who wear those are the staff of Onan's Carpet Cleaners, but don't trust them. They're the same goofballs who spend their vacations waterskiing with the Ty-D-Bol man.

Are you saying "Sacred" can be imputed to any Original Sinning sperm? How dare you avoid the 'natural law' fact that what I said is to the very special! I can only infer you condition yourself on it as not all sperm are created equal —especially not all "Male Sperm," as written in the Constitution— nor do you condition yourself to say they have an absolute, inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I suppose you think run-of-the-mill sperm are low-class sperm; however, while they may not qualify for the designation "sacred," we should never condescend to ignore their contributions. I know how you 'community interest' people that have perched yourselves as if you are in a 'new paradigm' don't believe that sperm represents any part of the real world--but, not only do I see it that way, there have been Supreme Court judgments that have also applied that point in decisions concerning what adults do in determining when to beat the bishop, when to be fully sheathed, when to squirt to give birth, and even with whom and in what way to waste precious bodily fluids..

Later...

All joking aside, Happy Thanksgiving. Mine will be turkey and pig-less, because in my book, I have an absolute, inalienable, absolute, autonomous right NOT to Feed the Real Pigs of this world.

Well! All Rightie, then! I stand both corrected and enlightened, albeit the latter by dim bulb. Happy Thanksgiving!

Whoa there, Mr. Ed! My bulb, as dim as it was, nevertheless allowed me to see your playfullness and mocking humor. Apparently, your bulb was so dim as to miss the same in mine. So, to which “dim bulb” do you refer—yours or mine? Tsk tsk tsk...

My own, as in having perceived it in a manner similar to "...through a glass, darkly."

Kerry’s apparent fears about community, or the “greatest good,” i.e., that it means the obliteration of individual autonomy and freedom, cannot be justified. His statement that if individual rights are not inalienable, they don’t exist at all, also fails scrutiny. If he insists on rejecting community, where individual rights sometimes have to be renounced for the sake of other’s rights, by saying liberty is meaningless there, he has missed the complexity. Freedom is still free, even if it derives from compromises between opposing interests, or if it is based on the greatest good.

He has never understood that "community" is the macrocosm, or infrastructure, without which any microcosm of individual rights and their exercise, is impossible. It's for that reason that Libertarianism is barbarism. Without community, everybody's on their own and the law of the jungle kicks in, but they'll never acknowledge that. Representative government is far from perfect, but it is, so far, the best of a plethora of imperfect alternatives to anarchy, chaos, and/or barbarism. It is such because its laws are made mostly by consensus, crooked, bought politicians and presidential election fixing notwithstanding. So, without the overarching, infrastructural umbrella of law, made and enforced by duly authorized representatives of the people, nobody can be free to individually exercise "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," because, in such a case, nobody would dare leave his/her house unarmed or without armed escort. "Community," imperfect as it is, is the macrocosmic structure that makes it possible for individual rights to exist. They can't be exercised in a chaotic or anarchic vacuum without some kind of violent supporting mechanism. It's beyond me how anybody educated at the level of a doctor, all of whom had to take at least a rudimentary undergraduate college core of arts, letters, and humanities, could fail to see this kind of basic stuff or have such a non-inquisitive mind as to fail to seek intelligent answers to it, unless of course, as I suspect in his case, he's never engaged in real dialectic intellectual activity, but, rather, only sought answers which will provide a priori support for his philosophically tenacious opinions.

Community, in the form of representative government and the laws and administrative codes it provides, is the sole guarantor of any individual's right to seek "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Secondary to community in that supporting role are the communal and consensual sociological mores, behavior patterns, and social norms unofficially observed by the individuals in any socioeconomic grouping in order to get along with their peers. Without the latter, everybody would literally be at everybody else's throats all the time, e.g., it's not acceptable to cut into public queues to get tickets for a performance or athletic event, upon pain of somebody kicking your ass, even though it's not technically illegal to cut into such a line. The same applies to more serious values, such as how other people should behave in opting yea or nay for abortions. Why this "Kerry" deliberately chooses to address these things or fails to understand them, if he is indeed intelligent enough to be a doctor, is beyond me. If he's pressed about it, he answers questions with questions and then claims he doesn't do that.

A world view that assumes that those who value community do not value individuality is just plain wrong. Individuality, that each of us is a unique person with fundamental rights, does not disappear where the greatest good is a consideration. For example: The members of a surgical team are no less individuals for their cooperation at the task at hand, the saving of a life. Each nurse, each doctor, is an autonomous person even while acting within the team for a good purpose.

He cannot understand the differences between belief in community and surrender to groupthink, and that's one reason I can't stomach his arguments. It's an overly simplistic position, the militant support of which, in my opinion, makes him a simpleton. It's also a tired old Libertarian saw of an argument. As soon as you discuss any of this stuff with any Lib, they trot it out.

Also this, to the subject at hand: The idea of an unborn child having autonomy fails scrutiny too: No unborn child made an autonomous choice to be conceived, never asked to be born, never gave permission to be created. As I see it, therefore, the autonomy of personhood doesn’t kick in until birth, and quite awhile after that, to boot.

If the autonomy of personhood were instant and perpetual, we would allow children to do whatever they want, whenever they want. Does anybody other than me think that's not a real good idea?

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:
Quote Bush_Wacker:

Since when is all life considered sacred in the United States?

If someone is trying to break into my house I have full legal right to shoot them dead without knowing whether this person was a threat to me or my property. You will find this right very heavily defended by conservatives and the GOP.

If a woman has a fear that a fetus in the womb may be a threat to her or her future she is a criminal of the worst kind if she even thinks of aborting.

I believe that abortions would not even be an issue if men were able to get pregnant. That speaks for itself.

I said something similar back on page 4: "a rapist entering my home inspires an absolute in me—his "right to life" becomes nothing to me, and I will kill him gladly if I get the chance. A rapist, by virtue of his criminal intent, has relinquished any right to his life. But I have an absolute right —from every perspective, moral, legal, individual or civic— to defend my own life and happiness from threats against it. Not everyone feels that way. Some people would rather be non-violent and never kill. That's not me.

If Kerry wants life to be an absolute, inalienable right for a fetus, so that once a fetus reaches viability its life deserves equal consideration beside that of the mother, then we have a conflict, as D_NATURED has rightly pointed out. So this is the reason I tend not to put fetal life in the absolute category. I tend to put a woman with an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy in the same predicament as one whose home has been invaded by an intruder: She has a right to defend her life against such a threat to her life, liberty and pursuit of happiness; it matters not a jot to me that the fetus itself may be "innocent."

But don't expect Kerry to grok the points made there.

I agree 100% with your stated positions on these points.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Calperson:
Quote Bush_Wacker:

If a woman has a fear that a fetus in the womb may be a threat to her or her future she is a criminal of the worst kind if she even thinks of aborting.

Again, why is adoption not even on the radar for liberals? Why is thread now on page 5 without even mentioning it once?

Adoption should be "on the radar" -- of all opponents of the right to choose. There should be a national law requiring every adult voter to publicly state his/her positon on the right to choose and go on record about it. Then, ALL adult opponents of the right to choose should be REQUIRED, by law, to adopt the child of an unwanted pregnancy carried to term, AND to give that child a good adopted home until its 18th birthday. People unopposed to the right to choose would not be required to participate. That's how adoption should be placed "on the radar" of opponents of the right to choose.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Calperson:
Quote Zenzoe:
Quote Calperson:

Again, why is adoption not even on the radar for liberals? Why is thread now on page 5 without even mentioning it once?

Adoption is understood as one of the options under the concept of "pro-choice." Parenthood, adoption, abortion—a woman, families, a couple, each can choose among the options, according the best interest of all involved, but, most importantly, according to the mother's best interest. It's her body, not your body, not the government's body, not the man's body. Hers.

Ah, yes and given that we liberals are scientific, lets deconstruct and investigate the term "hers".

Let's not, via opting not to indulge stupid, diversionary arguments which have no basis in common sense and contribute nothing but sophomoric obscurantism to the discussion at hand.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Lots of great stuff there, Ulysses, including LOLs along the way. Same with D_NATURED—very funny tongue-in-cheek, and true.

The thing about libertarians (though I'm not sure Kerry is one, given his apparent anti-corporate stance) is that they confuse license with liberty, imagining themselves to be all about liberty, when they're actually all about "children" doing "whatever they want, whenever they want."

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

Lots of great stuff there, Ulysses, including LOLs along the way. Same with D_NATURED—very funny tongue-in-cheek, and true.

What's sad is that Calperson, despite his occasional sense-making, does not understand this issue any better after five pages of debate. His insistence that adoption is the answer to the issue of female reproductive freedom is ass-backwards. It does nothing to address the idea of whether or not a woman should be forced to carry a fetus to term that she does not want to raise OR deliver for the purpose of adoption. You know, the basic human rights stuff? All conservatives can come up with, it seems, is emotional drivel and false equivalencies.

Talking about adoption in an abortion debate is like mentioning hot dogs in a debate about the future of major league baseball. There is no relevant connection. Forcing women to deliver babies that they then give away is not reproductive freedom. It's just a get out of parenthood card, which is not the same thing.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote D_NATURED:

What's sad is that Calperson, despite his occasional sense-making, does not understand this issue any better after five pages of debate. His insistence that adoption is the answer to the issue of female reproductive freedom is ass-backwards. It does nothing to address the idea of whether or not a woman should be forced to carry a fetus to term that she does not want to raise OR deliver for the purpose of adoption. You know, the basic human rights stuff? All conservatives can come up with, it seems, is emotional drivel and false equivalencies.

Talking about adoption in an abortion debate is like mentioning hot dogs in a debate about the future of major league baseball. There is no relevant connection. Forcing women to deliver babies that they then give away is not reproductive freedom. It's just a get out of parenthood card, which is not the same thing.

That reminds me—Natural Lefty's most recent blog post,The Great American Freedom Scam, allowed me to vent some about abortion as it relates to freedom:

"You have said that freedom is a state of mind, mostly, but for a woman with an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy, it's hard to imagine any state of mind that could overcome her sense of involuntary servitude, where the State could deny her choice of abortion. State intervention in the reproductive choices women make enslaves women physically, tangibly and materially. States and religions that deny women reproductive choice deny women freedom in the most basic sense."

Conservatives are big on individualism and anti-government intervention into the lives of citizens, until it means granting individual, civil liberties to people they either don't like or consider substandard in some way (the standard being mostly white and male).

Of course, then you have your conservative females, those willing and happy to subordinate their lives to perpetual pregnancy and to populating the planet, because it's "God's will." If they have a good-provider husband, I suppose they can go for years and years without the pain of natural consequences; but if they don't have support, it's a different story. I have a niece who had two babies with two different, absent fathers. She was adamantly, passionately, fanatically anti-abortion —and politically conservative— and yet she had no problem with depending on California's welfare aid. The irony of such never occurred to her.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

It is draining to read through the onslaught of personal attack and hyberbole , especially when liberals start shrieking like Nancy Pelosi that women are going to DIE!!!

I for one believe in abortion when the womans life is in danger, unfortunately however, 2 % of all abortions are because of a danger to the womans life, and 1 % of all abortions are because of rape. If we looked honestly and this subject we need to look at the the 97%, the vast, vast majority of terminations that have occured because the woman sees abortion as just another form of contraception. And lets face it honestly, when the consenting act of sex occurred in this 97%, hasn't the much argued about CHOICE already been made?

The issue brought up here relating to "freedom" are similarily hyperbolic, as we live in a co operative society and not total OWS anarchy. I for one am pleased that society looks down upon someone who would just approach someone else in the street, slice open their skull with a scapel, and then proceed to suck their brains out with a vacuum. That would be illegal, and with good cause.

It is also very strange that after much bleating about a woman being "unhappy" about raising a child, that we now declare that adoption has no relevancy to the topic whatsoever?

Calperson's picture
Calperson
Joined:
Dec. 11, 2010 10:21 am
Quote Calperson:

It is draining to read through the onslaught of personal attack and hyberbole , especially when liberals start shrieking like Nancy Pelosi that women are going to DIE!!!

Only the most absurdly ignorant view of history ignores the FACT that when abortions were illegal, women died. Only an even more willfully ignorant grasp of the issue allows one to pretend that wouldn't be the case were abortions re-criminalized.

I for one believe in abortion when the womans life is in danger, unfortunately however, 2 % of all abortions are because of a danger to the womans life, and 1 % of all abortions are because of rape. If we looked honestly and this subject we need to look at the the 97%, the vast, vast majority of terminations that have occured because the woman sees abortion as just another form of contraception. And lets face it honestly, when the consenting act of sex occurred in this 97%, hasn't the much argued about CHOICE already been made?

This is 2011, now. Women can choose to have sex AND choose not to procreate. And, if they use protection and it fails, they don't have to endure childbirth and raise a child they don't want to raise. They can legally have the fetus removed and where women do not have this right, their lives are that of second class citizens.

The issue brought up here relating to "freedom" are similarily hyperbolic, as we live in a co operative society and not total OWS anarchy. I for one am pleased that society looks down upon someone who would just approach someone else in the street, slice open their skull with a scapel, and then proceed to suck their brains out with a vacuum. That would be illegal, and with good cause.

It's also illegal for just anyone to take a dead body and cut it up but we allow this practice for licensed professionals called coroners

That you are glad that society looks down on abortion seekers or providers is a symptom of your irrational tad pole fetish. Start valuing women and there will be fewer and fewer abortions.

It is also very strange that after much bleating about a woman being "unhappy" about raising a child, that we now declare that adoption has no relevancy to the topic whatsoever?

What, if I may ask, DOES adoption have to do with abortion rights? That you think you have the convenient answer of "just put them up for adoption" does nothing to solve the problem of women- GROWN WOMEN- being forced to serve as incubators by a society that has no better plan than to grant them the post-pardem "reproductive" right of adoption. Jesus, dude, don't you see how adoption is after the fact? It is AFTER reproduction has taken place. If no "mini me" comes out of the woman, there is no reproduction. Your point completely dismisses the main issue of, why don't women have the right to decide who or what grows within their bodies?

You, Cal, are the one bleating about the rights of a fetus while you would deny the rights of a grown human in which the fetus grows. If you can't see how ridiculous that is, I can't help you. Abortion IS birth control. To say it is "contraception" is to misunderstand what contraception is and to offer adoption as the answer to abortion is to misunderstand THAT issue completely. That's not hyperbole. You're really that out of touch.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote Calperson:

I for one am pleased that society looks down upon someone who would just approach someone else in the street, slice open their skull with a scapel, and then proceed to suck their brains out with a vacuum.

Oh stop exaggerating. Talk about hyperbole.

88-92% of all abortions happen during the first trimester, prior to the 13th week of gestation. A fetus that young is tiny, more space-alien than wholly human. Sure, we can project all sorts of sentimental delusions onto its tiny form, but in fact it is neither conscious nor endowed with enough sentience to suffer greatly from being set apart from its hostess. Certainly, whatever it feels when aborted is nothing compared to the potential suffering caused by a forced pregnancy. Use your imagination. Think.

Is it really so hard for you to grant importance to the lives of women? Why do you need to denigrate the character of women, by implying they would rather depend on abortion than use contraceptives? Are you so out of touch with real life that you cannot imagine how "accidents" happen? Why the dim view of women? Why do you hate us?

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

Oh stop exaggerating. Talk about hyperbole.

in fact it is neither conscious nor endowed with enough sentience to suffer greatly from being set apart from its hostess.

I've got no idea how you know the status of the childs "conciousness" or when this occurs but I do admire your strength of conviction in believing. It is almost "faith" like. Given that there is no scientific data on when a baby reachs concious thought it is admiriable that you just "know" and are so sure of your position. It is almost like you are not even an atheist :)

It is good to see you are opening your mind enough to admit that the baby does indeed "suffer", albiet not to the arbitrary level of "greatness" you have set, and I for one, I confess, do not hate women enough to refer to them as "hostess".

Calperson's picture
Calperson
Joined:
Dec. 11, 2010 10:21 am
Quote Calperson:
Quote Zenzoe:

Oh stop exaggerating. Talk about hyperbole.

in fact it is neither conscious nor endowed with enough sentience to suffer greatly from being set apart from its hostess.

I've got no idea how you know the status of the childs "conciousness" or when this occurs but I do admire your strength of conviction in believing. It is almost "faith" like. Given that there is no scientific data on when a baby reachs concious thought it is admiriable that you just "know" and are so sure of your position. It is almost like you are not even an atheist :)

It is good to see you are opening your mind enough to admit that the baby does indeed "suffer", albiet not to the arbitrary level of "greatness" you have set, and I for one, I confess, do not hate women enough to refer to them as "hostess".

Still not using spell check, Mr. Holier Than Thou?

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Calperson:
Quote Zenzoe:

Oh stop exaggerating. Talk about hyperbole.

in fact it is neither conscious nor endowed with enough sentience to suffer greatly from being set apart from its hostess.

I've got no idea how you know the status of the childs "conciousness" or when this occurs but I do admire your strength of conviction in believing. It is almost "faith" like. Given that there is no scientific data on when a baby reachs concious thought it is admiriable that you just "know" and are so sure of your position. It is almost like you are not even an atheist :)

It is good to see you are opening your mind enough to admit that the baby does indeed "suffer", albiet not to the arbitrary level of "greatness" you have set, and I for one, I confess, do not hate women enough to refer to them as "hostess".

How long does an abortion take compared to a pregnancy, delivery and child rearing? I think it's safe to say the woman who lacks human rights will suffer longer than the fetus in question. Can we dismiss the fucking concern over the suffering (great or small) of a tad pole, now, and think about humans, for once, who will really suffer if you get your tad-pole-luvin' way? Any potential suffering endured by a fetus, as a result of abortion, is short lived. As far as we know, dead things do not suffer.

I noticed you prefer to argue consciousness with Zenzoe, rather than human rights with me. She didn't need to mention consciousness (because it's irrelevant to the human rights issue), but probably did so to calm your fears that little people were being tortured in the womb. I will address the consciousness issue quickly because it does not deserve great introspection. That you take a lack of data and pre-suppose that fetal consciousness exists is no different than someone else pre-supposing it does not. To imply there is the same "faith" in the pro-choice camp as in the pro-life camp is nuts, though. Where evidence is lacking, we can not assume, as pro-lifers do, that there is consciousness. Anecdotally, the evidence is clear that no new-born baby has ever regailed their nursing staff with stories of their womb-time. In fact, I don't know any adults who have memories from before the age of toddler. Perhaps, this is because the human brain continues to develope for a decade or more after birth and, prehaps, babies don't have any way to categorize or understand what they experience before a certain age, including pain. Regardless of the consciousness level, the fact that women are humans and fetuses are not, is the point. The idea of fetal consciousness is a red herring.

Now, if you would kindly explain how a fetus is deserving of anything, including life, at the expense of a grown woman, I'd love to hear it.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm

Survive was intended to be as opposed to being a parasite

ardubya
Joined:
Aug. 18, 2010 12:03 pm
Quote ardubya:

Survive was intended to be as opposed to being a parasite

Ummm.....? I'll assume you oppose my position, though your post could as easily be an public service message against No Child Left Behind.

Procreation does nothing for the survival of the mother. In fact, it can be an obstacle to her survival. Survival of the species, however, is another matter. To relieve that concern, I will reference the existing seven billion participants in this planets experiment with bipedal apes. A few dead tad poles aren't going to be missed.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm

I'll ignore most of Ulysses comments since they are self-righteously saturated with a bias against me that has no bearing in the point of the discussion--more as an accusation against me not prioritizing 'community interests' up against 'individual rights'. It's those that take a personal position claiming 'community interests' up against acknowledging such 'individual rights' that I have a particular problem with--the point of the personal interests confirms to me the egotistical qualities of such a position. The very opposite of what that person appears to be claiming in professing such a concern of 'community interests' over 'individual rights'--but, egotistical nonetheless. And, if you don't think that people can't see it that way, you and all the others that hold 'community interests' against 'individual rights' need to gain a little insight into your position. Your assuredness of such a piety of 'community interests' as having no egotistical component is lost once you apply it against another as your purpose.

Again, what is the substantive difference you can offer here between a 'community interested in individuality' and one willing to 'grant individual rights to others as much as acquire them for oneself'? I want to know exactly what component that represents 'community interests' that distinguishes those two statements. If you can actually offer one, then we may have something to go on to continue a constructive conversation. But, not even DRC has come in to remark on that statement. I will even go further in that remark and claim there is nothing more substantive to 'the community' than each member as a person. Just exactly like if there is going to be a 'selfish interest', then it will be in the person who has such interest, if there is really going to be a 'concern for others', then it will be in that person who has that concern. Do you, or Zenzoe, or anyone intent on 'prioritizing community interests' (especially as being 'for the greater good'), have another substantive concept to offer that gains (and expresses) such a 'community interest' other than the ones doing it? And, what is that? What is the substantive difference between a 'community interested in individuality' and one who 'grants individual rights to others as much as acquire them for oneself'?

In that respect, I'll continue on:

Zenzoe, it's good that you understand the definitions of 'autonomy' and 'Munchausen's'--however, even as you seem to acknowledge my dilemma presented contrasting the two components up against any 'organizing authority', you don't seem to comment on which you would hold as a priority when it comes to considering the extent that either plays in whatever incentive the 'organizing authority' is to have in this--and, I'm not just talking about 'the authority of the doctor'--I am talking about the 'authority that judges the doctor'. You seem to have decided that my actions were worth your condemnation as you interpret the Hippocratic Oath here:

So, Kerry, I can understand your frustration with the patient in question, as I can understand the sense that doctors get squeezed from all sides, a reality that has been underneath all your questions and your quandary within this discussion, or so it would appear. However, I do think the Hippocratic Oath has something to say to you now, by way of reminder: “I will remember that I remain a member of society with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.”

If autonomy is to be the priority in such assessments (including the autonomy of the physician), that doesn't make the judgment as directly as I would have liked to have seen from you. I would rather have heard from you what you would have done in such circumstances than some pontification on your part in judging me on how you interpret the Hippocratic Oath (as I see it, there is no way to get away from the egotism involved in judgments--any judgments--no matter what excuse on 'community interests' you may claim--as Thomas Jefferson promoted as being the basis for the rational experiment in American government, I do adhere to the rational Christian basis of 'judging not lest you yourself be judged'--in other words, the most accurate judgment that you can make in any situation is put yourself in that position--of all 'the players in the parable'--and, then, make the judgment). I think the question that both of my examples indicate is how far do you hold the obligations and duties of the physician against the detractions of the accusations of malpractice--however irrational they can be? Or, since you like to put the Hippocratic Oath in this, which is more representative of what the Hippocratic Oath is to mean--letting the drunk walk out like he wants and risk being killed on the street or holding the drunk against his drunken will and have that be claimed as an assault by the doctor involved? Which one serves more of a 'community interest'--and more of the Hippocratic Oath?

You accusers of my position I think have yet to understand the extent of this problem--especially if you give yourself the right to judge as if you have gained some 'community interest' that you, personally, don't have to attest to--to me, that is the epitome of the 'dogmatic incentive'. And, unlike DRC, who seems to like to use the word 'rational' to mean 'against the interests of all others', I qualify the term rational more to its logical basis--as a manner of cognitive comparison (just like if A=B and B=C, then A=C, sort of 'comparison in rationality and logic')--in law and science. And, when it comes to the most fundamental of judgments in the human condition, as I've said over and over, the most valid statement to make in such a judgment is put yourself in the position of the ones you are judging. And, just like a parable, it doesn't have to be just the physician's position--you can also put yourself in the drunk's position. Would you rather be allowed to leave under your own drunken will to get killed crossing the street--or would you rather be tied down and drugged against your will to prevent even the possibility of that happening in your own drunken state? Or, do you want to have it both ways--and, then, judge the doctor as being wrong if something of harm is claimed either way? Which one is more conducive to the 'Hippocratic Oath'? Which, as I learned it, the first priority of the Oath was 'do no harm'......with respect to the pontifications of such an Oath, something just doesn't fit here, does it? And, of course, when Hippocrates made that Oath, Hippocrates was doing it in a time when I bet the judgment of the physician was the ultimate authority in such matters--not so today, Zenzoe. Or, would you mind the physician's judgment being the ultimate authority in such issues? I wouldn't--it would make my life a whole lot easier--but, that's not the reality of this rather judgmental world as it stands today....with the judgments of you and Ulysses standing out in my mind as obvious examples of such....as both of you seem to claim for yourselves the 'egolessness of community interest' representing 'the greater good'.....

As far as my situation with the one who mutilates themself and, then, threatens malpractice lawsuits of 'I' don't handle it the way they want me to, you seem to promote the idea that 'I' don't have any autonomy at all in the situation. In exactly (comparatively speaking) the same manner as making a woman give birth when she's against the pregnancy to begin with, would you make a physician do an elective abortion against their will? Would you claim that that is 'better serving the greater good of the community interest' in doing so? How much do you believe that 'I' as a physician should be forced to do against my will for this 'greater good of the community interest'? I've stated my points. With respect to this person that self-mutilates as a form of vicitimization of oneself for 'control of authority' (as Munchausen's syndrome is--with Munchausen's by proxy being you victimize your own child for that form of control), I, for one, cannot relate to that (even as that person claims sexual abuse by his father--something that, of course, may or may not be true--I, as I said to him, still don't see that as justifying his actions). And, I was willing to tolerate his accusations--up to a point. At that point, I knew that my own attitude could compromise my treatment and I took myself out of it--it, actually, is the most responsible thing to do, Zenzoe. And, there may be a couple of points you are missing with my passing it off to the surgeon. One, it makes the service more expensive--but, in light of the everpresent judgment of malpractice especially against a 'non-specialist', then getting specialists to do whatever the condition of that specialty requires will be more expensive every time. Any who would like to claim that medical care is already too expensive need to address that point. Secondly, the surgeon gets to put the patient to sleep so that he doesn't have to listen to the patient's accusations while he's working on him......8^).....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote D_NATURED:

D_NATURED, abortions are legal beyond the zygote stage--which doesn't last long compared to the length of the pregnancy. The real question being ignored here for the benefit of 'conditional interests in community' is do you believe in anything like an absolute right (against any and all community interests/standards), does the right to life fit into that (as well as the right to abort), and, if so, when?

.................................................

The main point is that, in my opinion, there should be ABSOLUTELY no point when the life within a woman is more important than the will of that woman upon which it relies...NONE! I would rather see viable fetuses exterminated by the score through a process of dismemberment and suction than to see a single woman have her body treated like a rental car by society. Being in possession of a womb does not make a person any less deserving the full assortment of human rights. One of those human rights- and you can phrase it any way you like- should be the freedom from having to have your own body used to sustain anyone else's body against your will. It's one thing to donate a kidney, it's quite another for society to say that you must donate it. It's one thing for a woman to use her body to create a baby, it's another for society to say she must. The whole concept of community standards is irrelevant. No community should care more, or force a woman to care more, for the life within than the one without. If she does, that is her own physical and spiritual choice. We should respect her decision either way. It's not the community's choice.

So, community standards only apply to things that are debatable. Whether or not women should lose their right-at any time- to determine what and whom grows within their body should not even be up for discussion. Now, I know there are communities that attempt to restrict the rights of women to make their own choices. That, however, is the tyranny I spoke of because it forces them to risk death in order to determine their own physical existence. Your arguments attempt to find a spark of doubt where there is none. Life is not a beating heart and rights aren't just for when they are convenient to the existing religious or community standard. There ARE absolutes. The absolute here is that women are female human beings and the magical qualities of procreation they posses are not an excuse to deny them the freedom from physical oppression that every other male human being enjoys.

Good post, D_NATURED. While, maybe because I claim myself as a libertarian (with leftist tendencies) and I've pointed out that 'the prioritizing of individual rights' (in its political sense) is what makes me a 'libertarian', and that seems to become a problem with having this issue completely described as 'contention between rights' (and when such claims on them are absolute--and when such claims more absolute than others) up against 'prioritizing community interests as the greater good', I think the gist of our arguments are very similar. When it concerns an unalienable right, 'community interests'--and those who claim 'community interests'--have no rightful authority to intervene. Period. Now, again, not to go against the gist of your statement, it will still come down to when the fetus gains a 'right to life' and when that 'right to life' supercedes the woman's right (that was absolute with respect to any other 'community interest') to decide against it. You seem to agree with Roe vs. Wade--it's not present until birth (or, are you saying it's not even present then--I am wanting to get an idea of how each one who is in this discussion qualifies to what extent they give the 'conditions of community interest' up against the 'absoluteness of individual rights'--but, once again, I am in agreement that 'community interests' cannot supercede the woman's right to determine the outcome of her pregnancy until at least the point to which the fetus, or newborn, gains the 'right to life'--at which stage now that 'right to life' can be an interest which supercedes the woman's will if she would rather kill the child at that point--do you agree with that?--while these seem to have some 'condition to them', those conditions also have 'absolute rights' involved....if they didn't, then, any 'condition' could supercede 'any right'....and I'm NOT for that form of 'rationale'--especially with some claim of 'community interests' as 'the greater good' imposed against real individuals without obviating its conditions against those 'rights'--up front and for all to see.....).

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:
Quote D_NATURED:

D_NATURED, abortions are legal beyond the zygote stage--which doesn't last long compared to the length of the pregnancy. The real question being ignored here for the benefit of 'conditional interests in community' is do you believe in anything like an absolute right (against any and all community interests/standards), does the right to life fit into that (as well as the right to abort), and, if so, when?

.................................................

The main point is that, in my opinion, there should be ABSOLUTELY no point when the life within a woman is more important than the will of that woman upon which it relies...NONE! I would rather see viable fetuses exterminated by the score through a process of dismemberment and suction than to see a single woman have her body treated like a rental car by society. Being in possession of a womb does not make a person any less deserving the full assortment of human rights. One of those human rights- and you can phrase it any way you like- should be the freedom from having to have your own body used to sustain anyone else's body against your will. It's one thing to donate a kidney, it's quite another for society to say that you must donate it. It's one thing for a woman to use her body to create a baby, it's another for society to say she must. The whole concept of community standards is irrelevant. No community should care more, or force a woman to care more, for the life within than the one without. If she does, that is her own physical and spiritual choice. We should respect her decision either way. It's not the community's choice.

So, community standards only apply to things that are debatable. Whether or not women should lose their right-at any time- to determine what and whom grows within their body should not even be up for discussion. Now, I know there are communities that attempt to restrict the rights of women to make their own choices. That, however, is the tyranny I spoke of because it forces them to risk death in order to determine their own physical existence. Your arguments attempt to find a spark of doubt where there is none. Life is not a beating heart and rights aren't just for when they are convenient to the existing religious or community standard. There ARE absolutes. The absolute here is that women are female human beings and the magical qualities of procreation they posses are not an excuse to deny them the freedom from physical oppression that every other male human being enjoys.

Good post, D_NATURED. While, maybe because I claim myself as a libertarian (with leftist tendencies) and I've pointed out that 'the prioritizing of individual rights' (in its political sense) is what makes me a 'libertarian', and that seems to become a problem with having this issue completely described as 'contention between rights' (and when such claims on them are absolute--and when such claims more absolute than others) up against 'prioritizing community interests as the greater good', I think the gist of our arguments are very similar. When it concerns an unalienable right, 'community interests'--and those who claim 'community interests'--have no rightful authority to intervene. Period. Now, again, not to go against the gist of your statement, it will still come down to when the fetus gains a 'right to life' and when that 'right to life' supercedes the woman's right (that was absolute with respect to any other 'community interest') to decide against it. You seem to agree with Roe vs. Wade--it's not present until birth (or, are you saying it's not even present then--I am wanting to get an idea of how each one who is in this discussion qualifies to what extent they give the 'conditions of community interest' up against the 'absoluteness of individual rights'--but, once again, I am in agreement that 'community interests' cannot supercede the woman's right to determine the outcome of her pregnancy until at least the point to which the fetus, or newborn, gains the 'right to life'--at which stage now that 'right to life' can be an interest which supercedes the woman's will if she would rather kill the child at that point--do you agree with that?--while these seem to have some 'condition to them', those conditions also have 'absolute rights' involved....if they didn't, then, any 'condition' could supercede 'any right'....and I'm NOT for that form of 'rationale'--especially with some claim of 'community interests' as 'the greater good' imposed against real individuals without obviating its conditions against those 'rights'--up front and for all to see.....).

Though I can understand the desire, by many, to designate an arbitrary point at which the pregnant woman's rights end and the fetuses rights begin, I am looking at this issue as a big picture rather than a single ultra-sound. It doesn't matter to me if the fetus is "viable". All that means, by the standard of pro-lifers is that the fetus can be removed from the womb and, with sufficient funds invested in medical technology, can be sustained long enough for it to develop enough for true viability. Viability is not the point of healthy womb evacuation. In fact, the fetus will stay in the womb to finish cooking, well after viability if allowed.

So, viability being a word that does not guarantee fetal health but, in fact, is as subjective as the availability of medical attention, is irrelevant. For me, there is a greater issue which is that we, as a society, would pick any point in the gestation process to deny a woman her rights to physical priority over ANY being that grows within her. So, yes, I suppose I would allow abortion the day before the due date. Even if that means slicing open the fetus skull and vacuuming out the gray matter. Not because I don't think babies are cute or nice but because I can't stand the idea of anyone telling me what to do with my body and I can only assume that women deserve the same. Unless, of course, women really are cursed by the "creator". Then, I guess, they are fair game for anyone with a penis to boss around (That remark is not aimed at you, Kerry, so don't be offended).

Ultimately, abortion is a medical procedure, not a religious exercise, so I really don't give a shit what the religionists think about it. If they don't like abortions, they can stop having them or move to Iran. As for the rest of the women, they should be able to expect that sense of bodily security that every man feels. Anything less than that is a two-tiered system of social status. Anything less is tyranny.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm

Kerry, I am only going to respond to the comments you make to me, as I encounter them. You've written too much for me to respond overall, or to all, right now. It gets to be overwhelming, after awhile.

This comment of yours, for example, comes up first: "Do you, or Zenzoe, or anyone intent on 'prioritizing community interests' (especially as being 'for the greater good')..." I have to stop you there, because I get the impression you have taken "greater good" to mean community and "prioritizing community interests," as you call it. It does not, just to clarify. The greatest good is the phrase, and it refers neither to community "interests" nor to individual rights. The greatest good might be a choice benefiting the most number of people, in one situation; or, it could mean the greatest good, the best outcome, benefiting an individual, where any other choice would do terrible damage to that individual, in another situation. This is also not a calculus that includes religious considerations, i.e., the "greatest good," according to God, or the Pope, or any other religious authority.

For me, where the greatest good determines what to do with an unplanned pregnancy, we consider ethical (based on reason) and civic principles (such as the right to privacy and the right to self-determination), as well as practical realities. There is no absolute calculus. There are no black and white standards. It's all about weighing the factors.

Anyway, you keep putting me in a camp that undervalues individual rights. I wish you would stop that.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Well, I'm glad to see that you, Zenzoe, recognize that there is a camp that 'undervalues individual rights' present here in thomland--and I apologize if you think that I have 'prejudged' you in that fashion by categorizing your comments accordingly. However, unless we are talking about different things here when we both use the term 'individual rights', I don't see you recognizing the extent to which autonomy plays in such 'individual rights'--either in the one in the place of authority or in the one in the place against it. Along with those that 'undervalue individual rights', you and D-NATURED seem to try to qualify every right that could be deemed an 'individual right' as being conditioned in some way (all being about 'weighing the factors' and all--who, by the way, in Zenzoe-world, gets to 'weigh' all those factors?)--even as D_NATURED now has claimed an ABSOLUTE 'right to abort' (apparently, as Roe vs. Wade offered, 'until birth')--but without responding to when a 'right to life' for the fetus/child were to supervene, if at all.

What are 'autonomy' and 'individual rights'? In the most basic and practical context, as I see it, both mean 'rights to choose'--and possessing 'rights to choose'. Your claim that 'I' as a physician was not following my 'Hippocratic Oath' in choosing not to treat the malpractice accuser with the deep self-mutilating leg wound doesn't seem to give me, as a physician, any right to choose. Plus, and I know you wouldn't know this, but there a couple of other elements in that position. Many ER physicians in my position would not have even tried--they would have called the surgeon right away. That would have been more in line with the corporate incentive to get 'the customer' in and out of the ER as quickly as possible (to 'satisfy the customer' for 'fast-service')--plus it would have curtailed their need to put up with the self-mutilater's harassment. However, I do have experience in such extensive suturing (and am considered good at what I do with it) and could have chosen to suture the case if the self-mutilater would have been just a little more appreciative of my efforts. But, since the self-mutilater wasn't, and chose to confront me with 'the power of malpractice accusations', I chose to cut off the relationship. I think that is still in the extent of my autonomy in such circumstances.

The other problem I see you having (and maybe I am still 'prejudging it') is that, in your insistence on there being 'no absoluteness' with the rational contention of what rights are to mean and how rights are to politically compare (even with 'community interests' involved in any appropriate manner of such a 'political assessment'), I'm having a hard time following your perspective in any rational way. The whole point about 'rational logic' and its comparative components in the 'if A=B and B=C, then A=C' manner is that, to have a rational basis to begin with, you have to start with something as 'A' in some 'factual sense'--close to an 'absolute component' that, if we are rationally comparing, 'we' can all agree as to its 'factualness', if you will. Making 'everything conditional' is hard to rationalize. It's the same problem I have with Ulysses emphasis on 'statistical trends'--its 'conditional element' (based on its 'general trend' as if 'officially factual') is hard to rationalize without a more substantive component to compare it to.

The problem that appears to be present in all talk about the human condition--especially relating to its character as conditioned by political issues--is what to base such a 'factual component' on. In autonomy's case, what is 'the fact' upon which autonomy lies? And, how does that relate to the 'nature of politics'? This does seem to be the most difficult concept for me to get across--and, you're right, I'm not sure if it's 'me' or if it's 'you' having the problem....8^)....(and I don't mean 'just you', Zenzoe). The best conceptual element that I can qualify my position on this is my distinctions between 'formal logic' and 'substantive logic' that I tried to promote on Antifascist's Republican Neoliberalism thread (after reading Andrew Feenberg's book, Heidegger and Marcuse: The Catastrophe and Redemption of History, concerning these very concepts). The factual component in rationally considering the political and ethical context of human interactions is the one thinking it as well as the one doing it--thus, using Feenberg's concepts, its necessary condition to be 'substantively logical' (the 'substantiation' being 'yourself'). There is no more factual an element to consider when it comes to rationally comparing 'individual rights' with its encompassing 'autonomy' even against any and all elements of 'community interests' that you may compare it to. If you try to express it in some abstract terms that follow a more 'formally logical manner' (outside of 'yourself')-- just like I think the 'do no harm' element of the Hippocratic Oath has no good answer to allowing the drunk to leave and get run over killed vs. tieing the drunk down and containing him to prevent that--without playing it out in your head as 'you' being the one in each of those options, you have made the basis for that logic (the 'A' if you will) as irrational as the abstraction is without such personal elements 'tieing it down' in its political and ethical contexts--even as, in your position on the Hippocratic Oath, you claim 'authority' has 'more duties' than the one being 'authorized against' (which duty? Let the drunk leave or tie the drunk and drug him 'against his will'?--and who has 'the authority' to judge that?--and what factual element are they using to rationalize such a judgment?--is it really 'do no harm' without substantiating it by the players involved as to what 'harm' means?--and can it really 'rationally' work 'either way' as the 'definition of harm'?).

That's about all I have to say for now. I'm sure you will counter with something to the effect that I'm not making sense to you--thus, posing a 'rational accusation'......all I can say for myself is that it does make sense to me....a whole lot of sense.....

I did think of one other thing to add in this 'word play' we are having here. 'Conditional' does NOT mean the same thing to me as 'comparative'. 'Conditional' carries the authority to undermine rational thought--'comparative' is, to me, the very basis for rational thought....

Later....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Oops! I just accidentally hit the flag as offensive button for Kerry's last post. I hope he and the administrator will acceopt my apology and that Kerry will not be punished.

Kerry's post was not offensive. Long-winded? Yes.

Kerry, I was going to respond point by point to your rant but I am beginning to see that there is no hope. After offering the most articulate, morally superior and socially responsible answer to your question I could muster, we remain far apart. And all because in the fetus you see the potential of greatness in excess of the irresponsible mother's current greatness. I get that. It's silly.

There is a famous story of a Chinese city that was under siege. After many months, the food was gone. Every edible plant, animal and insect had been devoured. As a last resort, the families traded babies so they could make soup. To let the greater good fail in defense of the lesser good is stupid.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm

Kerry, if your whole argumentation rests on your belief that "making everything conditional is hard to rationalize," i.e., that I'm not being rational, then we do have a problem. But this is the same problem we've had from the start: Talk about logical fallacies—you've been engaging in the straw man fallacy, up one side and down the other, ever since we started this discussion. You also engage in the "proof by verbosity" fallacy. Equivocation. Reification. So, perhaps it's best if neither of us make claims of perfect logic?

Regardless, I, Fool, press forward:

Zenzoe, it's good that you understand the definitions of 'autonomy' and 'Munchausen's'--however, even as you seem to acknowledge my dilemma presented contrasting the two components up against any 'organizing authority', you don't seem to comment on which you would hold as a priority when it comes to considering the extent that either plays in whatever incentive the 'organizing authority' is to have in this--and, I'm not just talking about 'the authority of the doctor'--I am talking about the 'authority that judges the doctor'. You seem to have decided that my actions were worth your condemnation as you interpret the Hippocratic Oath here:

Quote Zenzoe:

So, Kerry, I can understand your frustration with the patient in question, as I can understand the sense that doctors get squeezed from all sides, a reality that has been underneath all your questions and your quandary within this discussion, or so it would appear. However, I do think the Hippocratic Oath has something to say to you now, by way of reminder: “I will remember that I remain a member of society with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.”


If autonomy is to be the priority in such assessments (including the autonomy of the physician), that doesn't make the judgment as directly as I would have liked to have seen from you. I would rather have heard from you what you would have done in such circumstances than some pontification on your part in judging me on how you interpret the Hippocratic Oath

First, why should autonomy be the priority in such an assessment? Perhaps you prioritize your autonomy, but I doubt the patient prioritizes your autonomy, nor do I think the Hippocratic Oath prioritizes your autonomy. I do believe, if you read it plainly, it prioritizes "special obligations to your fellow human beings;" it prioritizes your membership in community; it prioritizes treatment of all your fellow human beings on an equal basis, regardless of their status or health. This was your OATH. It was and is an obligation. Either you honor your oath, or you do not. And I do not "pontificate" this as a judgment. I'm just stating the obvious. I wouldn't want to judge you harshly, though, because I don't have to face such things on a daily basis.

What would I have done? Who knows? But, here's a guess: as long as he was not threatening me physically, and I felt safe, I'm quite sure I would have tried to cajole him, probably by saying, with a smile, "Mr. ______, you're such a character! You remind me of my father, who was a Lieutenant in WWII—such a tough guy, but with with a heart of gold...I'm sure you have a heart of gold too...Now, let's get this thing sutured up, before it turns to jello! ha ha ha..." etc. But understand, I sympathize with the emotional state you were in, after being so threatened and insulted. Believe me, I've had my moments when I've lost my cool and my sense of humor both, even here at thomhartmann.com!

Regardless, I do think that if any principle should be unconditional, it should be those words in the Oath that obligate a physician to do his or her best for all patients. Would your attitude toward him have been different had you known he had recently lost a child in an accident? What if you knew he had injured himself, while rescuing someone from a burning building? After all, all you knew about him, apparently, was that he was an AH to you, and that he was an idiot in your hospital. That is, your choice assumed his behavior with you defined him in totality, and it disregarded the possibility of his being an entirely complex person, with both good and bad traits, deeds and accomplishments. In this way, you committed the Fallacy of Composition, by assuming the part of him you saw represented the whole of his character.

I understand you feel a doctor has autonomy and can choose to reject a patient, if he or she feels under duress, or feels compromised by a situation. However, aren't there laws against abandoning a patient, while the patient is in treatment? A lawyer cannot abandon a client. Of course, they don't have to accept a client in the first place. However, many attorneys will insist that everyone is entitled to a "vigorous defense," regardless of their crime, no matter how heinous the crime may be. Shouldn't the same principle apply in medicine?

Anyway, as I've been trying to say, it all depends.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

When it concerns an unalienable right, 'community interests'--and those who claim 'community interests'--have no rightful authority to intervene. Period.

Life. Liberty. Property. You, the good libertarian, consider these to be inalienable rights, based on the Declaration of Independence and natural law. True? Too bad you weren't around when the authors of the Bill of Rights came along and said, "...nor shall any person...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." You see, there, by some logic, they decided that those were not actually inalienable rights— sometimes it is in the interest of society (community interests) to take a life (say, in a lawfully conducted war), or someone's liberty (jail) or property (eminent domain). So much for your "unalienable" rights that no community interests can be applied against.

Quote Kerry:

Now, again, not to go against the gist of your statement, it will still come down to when the fetus gains a 'right to life' and when that 'right to life' supercedes the woman's right (that was absolute with respect to any other 'community interest') to decide against it. You seem to agree with Roe vs. Wade--it's not present until birth (or, are you saying it's not even present then--I am wanting to get an idea of how each one who is in this discussion qualifies to what extent they give the 'conditions of community interest' up against the 'absoluteness of individual rights'--but, once again, I am in agreement that 'community interests' cannot supercede the woman's right to determine the outcome of her pregnancy until at least the point to which the fetus, or newborn, gains the 'right to life'--at which stage now that 'right to life' can be an interest which supercedes the woman's will if she would rather kill the child at that point--do you agree with that?--while these seem to have some 'condition to them', those conditions also have 'absolute rights' involved....if they didn't, then, any 'condition' could supercede 'any right'....and I'm NOT for that form of 'rationale'--especially with some claim of 'community interests' as 'the greater good' imposed against real individuals without obviating its conditions against those 'rights'--up front and for all to see.....).

There you go again, conflating community interests with the "greater good," among your other habits of exposition that condemn the conversation to endless circumnavigations with no land in sight.

Can't you understand the notion of conditional outcomes, depending on circumstances? If rights are absolute and inalienable, why bother with courts and judges? If liberty and the pursuit of happiness are absolute rights and plainly understood by all, let's just throw out all the laws, including traffic laws? In your libertarian heaven, there would be no need for lawyers and judges? After all, they'd have nothing to judge, nothing to consider, no circumstances to weigh, no conflicting rights to weigh, no community vs. individual rights to weigh, no intentions, no arguments, no conflicting laws to consider, that is, nothing to think about. Just let everybody do as they please, since all circumstances are the same?

As far as I'm concerned, community interests never have any bearing on decisions regarding abortion, unless you consider the negative circumstances created for society by forced pregnancies (although the law disagrees, i.e., "state interest" in protecting both the life of the mother and fetus). Abortion enhances community interests AND individual liberty. Those who espouse "community standards" (which are not the same thing as community interests, necessarily), that is, standards of "civilization" that do not allow "baby-killing," are the ones who like to deny individual rights —the rights of women to determine their reproductive destinies— by use of an Appeal to Emotion logical fallacy. We don't have to fall for that one.

Kerry wants the issue to be a contest between the individual rights of a woman against the equal rights to life of the fetus. At a certain point, he seems to say, the individual rights of the woman must give way to the right-to-life of the fetus. Tell me how the following is wrong, Kerry: The issue for you is a matter similar to the laws governing four-way stops at intersections: If the mother gets to the intersection first, she gets to proceed; but if she takes too long to move forward, and the fetus gets to the line, before she can, then the fetus gets to proceed. It's all so simple, isn't it?

Well, it isn't that simple. Circumstances:

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the constitutional right to privacy extends to the decision of a woman, in consultation with her physician, to terminate a pregnancy.

The Court also determined, however, that this right is not absolute and it must be balanced against the state's legitimate interest in protecting both the health of the pregnant woman and the developing human life. Therefore, according to Roe, the state's interest in protecting potential life becomes compelling at the point of fetal viability (when the fetus has the capacity for sustained survival outside the uterus). States are allowed to, and indeed have, severely restricted access to abortion in the third-trimester, except, as the Supreme Court has ruled, when necessary to preserve the woman's life or health. In subsequent cases, the Court made clear that viability is a medical determination, which varies with each pregnancy, and that it is the responsibility of the attending physician to make that determination. http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/06/02/thirdtrimester-abortions-f...

"...when necessary to preserve the woman's life or health." That's a conditional situation, Kerry. Nobody has absolute rights there: It all depends on the circumstances.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote D_NATURED:

Kerry, I was going to respond point by point to your rant but I am beginning to see that there is no hope.

Then, I'll be brief. Can you answer the question: When do you say that the fetus/child has a 'right to life' that intervenes on the mother's 'right to choose', if ever? I disagree totally with Zenzoe's assessment that that is a 'strawman's argument'--it is not. It is more a question designed to 'establish our own boundaries' in this discussion on 'abortion rights' and 'fetal/child life'--and it also gets to the extent of autonomy and 'individual rights' as being discussed.

The reason I think that Texas law is at least one rational one to determine this distinction is that Texas is approaching it from the 'all for one and one for all' perspective, I believe. And, if one life can survive to a normal life at 20 weeks, 'all lives' should be allowed that option. It's in the same vein that if one person gets that right, then all people should get that right. Government has no right to 'play favorites'. I don't have a problem with other states allowing elective abortions until birth (but recent federal law has interdicted on behalf of partial birth abortions since Roe vs. Wade)--or even other states confining it to 12 weeks. The point is that, once the 'right to life' element has been established for the fetus/child, the mother, now, has no 'right to choose' to abort and/or kill that fetus/child. Do you agree with that (that's one of Zenzoe's accusations of 'strawman'--but it goes right to the point of 'absoluteness in rights'--with 'right to life' holding priority when it exists--do you agree with that--and when?)?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Your response to D_NATURED pulls another straw man, by misrepresenting my comment about straw men in your arguments. I did not specifically point to any straw man argument.

Also, your comment to him appears to be uninformed as to my last comments to you, and uninformed as to a woman's right to an abortion if her life and health is endangered, as well as other points that I made to you in my last comments. You need to learn to comprehend the positions of others, Kerry.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

So, if you cannot tell me where my 'strawman argument' is adversely getting in the way of the production of the conversation, Zenzoe, how I am to ever respond and/or adjust it? Is this another 'harm can go either way' without every having to define it, Zenzoe? That's not rational. There is no 'A' from which to rationalize from when it is 'conditioned' on just about anything you want it to. Which makes deciding upon it quite difficult--unless you really do want authority to 'decide the conditions' for you (and me).

So, if that's not it, what are you talking about when you claim that I have put forth a strawman's argument? That I don't agree with your insistence on the 'non-absoluteness or rights'--and how you want to (vaguely) 'condition every one of them'? Is that a 'strawman argument' to you? What is in this discussion a 'strawman argument' to you? I see more people use that excuse to end the argument--not adjust it.....

By the way, I haven't read your last comments yet--I did see that you, once again, brought out the 'strawman argument' excuse without qualifying what you are saying.

Talk about logical fallacies—you've been engaging in the straw man fallacy, up one side and down the other, ever since we started this discussion.

So, what do you mean? Can you LOGICALLY clarify your accusation there, Zenzoe? Or, do you have the right to make accusations and, then, change 'the conditions' any time you want--as long as you have the right to judge me and my actions, right?

Equivocation.

Equivocation? I'm the one talking about the ABSOLUTENESS OF RIGHTS. You are the one 'conditioning' that--to what, you've never actually clarified. Something of the matter of 'community interests'--but, that, apparently, can also be 'conditioned'. The only 'absolute' right you've mentioned is the 'right to abort' against 'community interests'--as unalienable. But you never answered the question if you thought that was the only one....even up against when the fetus/child's 'right to life' can ABSOLUTELY supercede it in its political context (against those very 'rights to choose' of the mother).....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

First, why should autonomy be the priority in such an assessment?

'Autonomy' is the priority in ethics IF 'individual rights' are the priority in politics. Since you said you understood the meaning of 'autonomy', I asked you if you connected the ethical perspective of 'autonomy' to the political perspective of 'individual rights'--and to what extent, if any? If not, what is YOUR definition of either--'autonomy' or 'individual rights'--and do you correlate the two in any way? Again, not a strawman argument as far as I'm concerned--just trying to understand where you are coming from when you talk of 'conditioned rights'.....are we back to the dogs being family companions vs. the next meal as 'their rights'?

Quote Zenzoe:

First, why should autonomy be the priority in such an assessment? Perhaps you prioritize your autonomy, but I doubt the patient prioritizes your autonomy, nor do I think the Hippocratic Oath prioritizes your autonomy. I do believe, if you read it plainly, it prioritizes "special obligations to your fellow human beings;" it prioritizes your membership in community; it prioritizes treatment of all your fellow human beings on an equal basis, regardless of their status or health.

Aw, back to YOUR RIGHT to judge me and my actions, right, Zenzoe? And, that has NO 'strawman argument' qualities to you, does it? Just 'conditioned' on whatever judgment you want to make at the time, is it? You said you understood the term 'Munchausen's'--is the patient's 'Munchausen's' covered under YOUR interpretation of the Hippocratic Oath up against my 'autonomy' (without you ever putting yourself in the positions of the players involved to judge it). If so, how so? You do give yourself a lot of leeway to judge me and my actions without, at any point, you defining your 'conditioned' position.....other than, just like Ulysses (I know, you don't 'undervalue individual rights'--or, at least, so you say), judging me and my actions and my statements.....

'Treatment of all patients on an equal basis'. Which 'basis' is 'equal', Zenzoe? Allowing the drunk to leave and get run over and killed--or tieing the drunk down and drugging him against his will? That's right, you haven't answered that question--not even to recognize how IRRATIONAL it is to 'condition it either way'. You don't seem to understand why the ER director BEING ACCUSED BOTH WAYS was so furious, do you? As your 'conditioned rights' indicate to me, it's fun to be the controller when you are using irrational motives (even 'feelings')--it's hell being the one controlled by such irrational, 'conditioned', motives--like allowing 'harm' to be defined 'either way'....is that your definition of 'equal basis'? The patient has absolutely no responsibility for their well-being--the physician has all the responsibility. Is that what you want? I wouldn't mind that--as I said, it would make my life a lot easier. However, that's not all there is to this 'authority' today, is there? What about the 'authority' to 'judge the physician'? Should that be rational or not? Or, just 'conditioned' on whatever impression you want to make it.....

This was your OATH. It was and is an obligation. Either you honor your oath, or you do not.

Is that your definition of the Oath--or my definition of the Oath? Mine says 'do no harm'--but, even with that, as I've told you before, that can be irrationally applied in a manner that does not have a straight-forward answer. You don't seem to have a problem with that because, in your supposed 'rational view', 'everything can be conditioned' (except, perhaps, at least at one point--unless you've already changed your mind, the 'unalienable right to abort'). Those who have to deal with such issues every day do have a problem with that......and, it's condescenders like you and Ulysses that allow that to happen.....which one is more 'harmful', Zenzoe? The drunk being allowed to walk across the street and get killed--or the one being forced to stay against his will? Not as easy as your accusations try to make it, Zenzoe. Not by a long shot--and, certainly, made no better when you allow yourself to 'condition it' on anything--and, then, try to force me to follow your definition of the Hippocratic Oath. Does the Hippocratic Oath include appeasing the Munchausen's person (and, therefore, play up to such self-mutilation for control of authority) to you up against my professional judgment (as well as my autonomy) against it? Is 'the customer always right' in the field of medicine to you, Zenzoe?

I'm just stating the obvious.

No, in your self-proclaimed right to judge me and my character, you are ignoring the obvious, Zenzoe. What defines 'harm' more to you? The drunk being allowed to leave the ER under his own volition and get killed crossing the street--or the drunk being confined against his will? As I think the judgment of another's autonomy requires, you didn't even say which one would 'define harm' more if you were the drunk. And, 'either way' is NOT rational--that is why the ER director got so mad (and, of course, the 'corporate answer' was to have that physician go to 'anger management classes').

What would I have done? Who knows? But, here's a guess: as long as he was not threatening me physically, and I felt safe, I'm quite sure I would have tried to cajole him, probably by saying, with a smile, "Mr. ______, you're such a character! You remind me of my father, who was a Lieutenant in WWII—such a tough guy, but with with a heart of gold...I'm sure you have a heart of gold too...Now, let's get this thing sutured up, before it turns to jello! ha ha ha..."

You're like DRC--you think that the 'ER setting' is right in line with the 'church setting'. This isn't a passive conversation on potentials, this is addressing issues coming at you all the time. And, even those that in the 'church setting' might claim such 'altruistic motives' as being 'for community', when it comes to them thinking that they are the ones dieing (or even hurt worse than their fellow man), it's all about 'ME! ME! ME!' to them. You should understand that my stand on the 'priority of individual rights' comes from experience as to its 'factual nature'--not some bullshit on 'feeling for the patient'. And, you don't think the threat of malpractice lawsuit is a personal threat? I do. How many physicians do you think would treat a patient that openly threatens them in a malpractice lawsuit as they are treating them? How many do you think should? You certainly put a lot of conditions on the physician without once acknowledging any responsibility from the patient. Is that really how you want it--or is that just how you want to judge me when the 'conditions' suit you?

And, that's just your first two paragraphs, Zenzoe. You love to have the right to accuse without qualifications other than using the 'external conditions of oaths' as YOU define them without, at any point, really indicating how you understand any of it.....and, 'that's' your 'rational position'? Especially one that doesn't 'undervalue individual rights'?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

Would your attitude toward him have been different had you known he had recently lost a child in an accident? What if you knew he had injured himself, while rescuing someone from a burning building?

Now, let's see. I know how you don't like doing this, but I do. If I were the person who recently lost a child in an accident or recently burned rescuing someone, would the first thing that came out of my mouth be a threat to sue the physician involved? Is that really a reasonable picture (considering all rights and all autonomy involved) to that situation, Zenzoe? Or, is it just that you don't think that a threat to sue has any problem with it--even when the treatment is being rendered at the time the threat is occuring? All that's 'covered by the Hippocratic Oath' to you, is it? And, you claim that it is 'I' that is posturing with 'strawmen arguments', here, Zenzoe? At least I've given you real-world examples--one being where two drunks wanted to leave the hospital--getting to sue for leaving and getting to sue for being forced to stay--and, then, wondering why the ER physician was so furious who was accused of both? Or, is that also removed by your interpretation of the Hippocratic Oath? Very similar to a woman being (irrationally) raped that had no (rational or violated absolute right) choice, to just 'sit there and take it' (and, if you complain, to 'anger management class' you go)--after all, 'your oath' tells you to....and the physician probably 'deserved it', anyway, right? After all, considering the 'Munchausen's' option here, 'the physician' is an 'authority' that you can pick on when you can't pick on any other impositions of 'authority' against your life, right? And, according to you, the Hippocratic Oath makes that physician just 'lay there and take it'--as if being raped without rights....because the 'ones judging the physicians' (not putting themselves in that position even in their manner of 'deciding this') are the 'rightful authority' on this to you--just like, perhaps, the ones judging the one being raped saying that the woman 'probably deserved it, anyway'....

In this way, you committed the Fallacy of Composition, by assuming the part of him you saw represented the whole of his character.

You have your accusations against me all figured out, don't you, Zenzoe? Did you remember that I did say this person frequents the ER with several forms of self-mutilating tactics? Did you remember that I am in a relatively rural environment where this person is known by many in the hospital even outside of the hospital? Yet, you say that 'I', under your definition of the Hippocratic Oath, have to put up with this person's self-mutilating Munchausen's tactics even though 'I', in my professional (and personal) opinion (as I stated to him), think what he's doing will come to no good end for him--may even 'harm' him--and that not saying so could even violate the Hippocratic Oath to 'do no harm'? Did that ever come to your mind once, Zenzoe? Or, is this all about accusing me--and you not qualifying your own remarks on what 'conditions rights' (other than other rights)?

However, aren't there laws against abandoning a patient, while the patient is in treatment?

Do you know how to define 'abandonment' in this situation, Zenzoe? I passed the patient off to the surgeon--I got someone to take care of the problem (even if it wasn't me). That's NOT abandonment. But, it is you liking to judge me every step of the way without you once 'putting yourself in the picture', isn't it? Claiming such 'external controls' as 'oaths' for yourself as you continue to accuse me....and, that 'conditional judgment' is 'rational' to you, Zenzoe? It is you claiming the 'authority' to judge 'me'--on your 'conditions' more than your 'rationale'....

A lawyer cannot abandon a client. Of course, they don't have to accept a client in the first place. However, many attorneys will insist that everyone is entitled to a "vigorous defense," regardless of their crime, no matter how heinous the crime may be. Shouldn't the same principle apply in medicine?

I'll center on your comment of 'Of course, they don't have to accept the client in the first place' as meaning that such lawyers do retain some autonomy (to choose) apart from their 'professional obligations'--but, according to you as the accuser that you are, 'I', as a physician, don't have that right. I think I do. Especially if the first thing that comes out of their mouth is 'I'll sue you if you do anything wrong'.....since you're mentioning lawyers, how many lawyers would 'retain their client' if the first thing that came out of their mouth was 'I'll sue you if you do anything wrong'? Put the lawyer in the picture and tell me how much of an 'oath' is 'obligating that lawyer'......would that lawyer be more likely to retain that client--or pass it off to someone else? Or, what 'conditional alterations' are you going to make out of that straight-forward question?

Anyway, as I've been trying to say, it all depends.

Not when it comes to unalienable rights being declared as existing, Zenzoe. And, if you are a lawyer, I think you should already know that--or explain how the Supreme Court judged Loving vs. Virginia, Griswald vs. Connecticut, Roe vs. Wade, and Lawrence vs. Texas, accordingly--with the only exception of that being Bowers vs. Hardwick and that was because the Supreme Court had declared that no unalienable right was being violated (overturned with Lawrence vs. Texas when the Supreme Court reversed its decision and said that one was). Or, if that is not how you see these judgments being made (an unalienable right up against any and all community interests/standards), explain them in the manner you see them....it all depends ONLY if a recognized 'unalienable right' DOESN'T EXIST.

And, that's just your first post, Zenzoe.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

Life. Liberty. Property. You, the good libertarian, consider these to be inalienable rights, based on the Declaration of Independence and natural law. True? Too bad you weren't around when the authors of the Bill of Rights came along and said, "...nor shall any person...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." You see, there, by some logic, they decided that those were not actually inalienable rights— sometimes it is in the interest of society (community interests) to take a life (say, in a lawfully conducted war), or someone's liberty (jail) or property (eminent domain). So much for your "unalienable" rights that no community interests can be applied against.

Uh, Zenzoe, we've been over this before. Do you remember your accusation of my 'positivist leanings' (is that against 'natural law', Zenzoe? Or do you actually believe in 'natural law' going right along with 'natural rights' up against 'positive law'?) concerning these 'established rights' (supposedly 'by law'--but, not necessarily 'written law'--that's part of the distinction between 'positive law' and 'natural law'--and the qualifications that can be offered with 'due process' concerning them both--including jury review of the constitutionality of any written laws and jury nullification finding a person Not Guilty even though that person violated the written law) when I reminded you that 'due process' REMOVES 'unalienable rights'--it DOESN'T CREATE THEM. In fact, 'due process' is THE ONLY rightful manner to REMOVE 'unalienable rights'. My 'right to choose' and 'right to life' can be 'due processed' completely out of existence if I murder someone else (whose absolute 'right to life' and 'right to choose' have been removed by 'my choice'). As I've told you before, I wouldn't mind seeing a DNA-proven child rapist murderer be capitally punished--and done so by any means (in fact, you might be glad to know that I think that 'unreasonable punishment' is conditioned to the 'nature of the crime'--but, that conditioning is because such 'unalienable rights' that the child rapist-murderer may have once had were now removed by 'due process').

Not only do you appear to give yourself the right to accuse me--you, also, appear to give yourself the right to ignore what I say in such accusations. But, not to worry, I know that, according to you, you don't 'undervalue individual rights'.....like others here do....but, you do seem to have a problem with my 'libertarian position' on 'individual rights', don't you?

Quote Zenzoe:

Can't you understand the notion of conditional outcomes, depending on circumstances?

I can only understand them if you tell me who you are giving the right to determine such 'conditional circumstances'--and why? And, this was a point that I was going to make to D_NATURED in my first post--but, your post got in the way. When comparing each state's decision on when to allow state intervention 'for the benefit of the right to life of the fetus/child' (whether it be at 20 weeks gestation like Texas--or 12 weeks gestation like Utah--or all the way to birth as Roe vs. Wade allowed at the time like California and New York), the point was that the rational conclusions in such 'state's rights' circumstances were allowed to be different if the premises on the 'absoluteness of rights' were the same--the only distinctions to make were when was the 'right to choose' by the mother superceded by the 'right to life' of the fetus/child--and neither could be 'conditioned' by 'community interests' once such rights (and their boundaries, if any) were determined. The only thing a 'community interest' could impose for is in endorsing a supervening right. But, it doesn't look like I can get either Zenzoe or D_NATURED to claim that the 'right to life' of the fetus/child supervenes at any point. Is that to mean that the 'choice of the mother' is to be followed after birth--even if the mother would rather have the child dead? That's a part of this point that both Zenzoe and D_NATURED are ignoring....and, it does have to do with the hierarchy of rights involved--even Roe vs. Wade acknowledged that....it just didn't give the fetus the 'right to life' until birth--and left it up to each state to qualify it, otherwise....but, not possible if the fetus were given the 'right to life' at conception--and Roe vs. Wade even acknowledged that......which Roe vs. Wade prevented by allowing the pregnant mother the 'right to choose' in any state at least until 12 weeks gestation....

If rights are absolute and inalienable, why bother with courts and judges?

Is that courts with--or without--a jury trial? And, do those juries have--or don't have--the 'natural law' right to determine the constitutionality of written laws and, if they deem it appropriate, even 'jury nullify' a law by declaring someone who violated a written law as still being 'Not Guilty'? You may be glad to know that even libertarians run from that question when I ask it. Or, is 'authoritarian judgment' all there is for you, Zenzoe? You who says you don't 'undervalue individual rights'....and the legal, moral, ethical, precedences such 'individual rights' (associated with 'autonomy') hold....

If liberty and the pursuit of happiness are absolute rights and plainly understood by all, let's just throw out all the laws, including traffic laws? In your libertarian heaven, there would be no need for lawyers and judges?

You've apparently missed some of my remarks before in thomland. It does appear that modern lawyers want to make 'duties' absolute--and 'rights' conditional. Why is that? Is it because 'duties' go along more with 'written law' (or 'oaths') declaring such 'duties'--and 'rights' actually require a personal judgment? I wonder.....

I've remarked on the extent of jury review of the constitutionality of law, for instance, in other places. The judge obviously has the ability to overturn any juries judgment on 'constitutionality'--however, in doing so, I would think it only rationally pertinent and fair to do so considering the jury's judgment of such 'constitutionality'. Let's see in an appropriate case, with the appropriate instructions of the opposing lawyers in that case, that the jury decided that it was 'unconstitutional' for a corporation to be given anything like 'personhood rights'. The judge could overrule that--but, I think in doing so the judge would at least have to address why corporations should get anything like 'personhood rights'--not just 'declare it as written law'.....is that appropriate according to your view of 'legal authorizations'--I mean, isn't the most legitimate 'legal authority' the people--put in place on juries to judge it? Overrulable by judges to be sure--but not without qualifying against such 'common man judgments' as what juries may represent?

Abortion enhances community interests AND individual liberty. Those who espouse "community standards" (which are not the same thing as community interests, necessarily), that is, standards of "civilization" that do not allow "baby-killing," are the ones who like to deny individual rights —the rights of women to determine their reproductive destinies— by use of an Appeal to Emotion logical fallacy. We don't have to fall for that one.

When did 'I' make this an 'appeal to emotions'? I am the one speaking of ABSOLUTE RIGHTS.... with 'autonomy' and 'individual rights' involved.....

Of course, your examples to me of a 'person whose child was killed in an accident' or 'who was burned trying to save someone' I guess 'qualified your conditions' that I was to accept their threat of a malpractice lawsuit according to your understanding of the Hippocratic Oath--and that wasn't an 'appeal to emotions'? My only appeal is to rational judgment--based on the 'priority of individual rights'. I don't think it a rational judgment for the physician to be accused when the drunk leaves under his own volition to be killed crossing the street and the physician be accused when the drunk is forced to stay against his will. I know how accusers--conditioning their 'decisions' on 'emotions'--can have it go either way--but, people who actually have to make such decisions don't like being so irrationally controlled. Just like being raped without recourse and told to 'lay there and take it'--or, if you complain, go to 'anger management classes'.....

Quote Zenzoe:

Kerry wants the issue to be a contest between the individual rights of a woman against the equal rights to life of the fetus.

It is a contest between the 'right to choose' of the pregnant mother and the 'right to life' of the fetus--and when the 'right to life' intervenes against the mother's 'right to choose'. That is realistically exactly what it is. And, I'm not going to rehash how that is the case--I will, again, point out that neither D_NATURED nor Zenzoe have come in to declare if, and when, the fetus/child does have a 'right to life' that supercedes the woman's 'right to choose'--and, if that's not even at birth, well, in any other circumstance that I can think of, that would be called murder--or at least manslaughter. But, that little issue isn't 'part of the contest' apparently to Zenzoe's 'conditioned rights'....

And, I didn't understand your example one bit, Zenzoe. It's not 'who gets to the intersection' first, it's 'whose right is being honored'--and when.....with the ABSOLUTENESS OF RIGHTS trumping any and all 'conditioned decisions' being made in the 'community's interest'. Notice here, Zenzoe, that I am not even including the 'danger to the mother' condition that you seem to occasionally preempt this 'right to abort' issue with--that, to me, is an 'appeal to emotion'. I'm declaring that the mother has or has not the 'right', period. And, I am also declaring that the only thing that can intervene on that is when it is declared that the 'fetus/child' has the 'right to life'. You even try to 'condition' that--but, when it comes to the accusations of murder or manslaughter, I'm not sure how you have 'conditioned' it....is it 'murder' for a dog to be eaten in Asia? THAT'S 'conditional'....to 'community interest', by the way.....

Quote Zenzoe:

"...when necessary to preserve the woman's life or health." That's a conditional situation, Kerry. Nobody has absolute rights there: It all depends on the circumstances.

In that situation, why was the elective abortion prevented to begin with, Zenzoe? Was that because that state had declared that that fetus already HAD A RIGHT TO LIFE? Now, extraordinary circumstances were going to have to exist TO REMOVE IT--and, I bet that is right along with 'due processing'......someone had to qualify the mother's pregnancy as 'risking her life or health' to justify its actions, didn't they? It's a 'conditional situation'--but, unlike how you are trying to twist this point, it's up against a declared 'right to life' by the state to the fetus. That, by the way, hasn't been a declared 'unalienable right to life' on the fetus's behalf because it's not being applied all across the nation ('unalienable rights' preempt any community, state, or national, government's ability to curtail them by 'written law'--or even any person to restrict them by their 'right of choice' against it when it comes to when a fetus/child does gain an 'unalienable right to life'--and, then, extraordinary circumstances brought out by due process is the only legitimate way to 'remove them'--due process, nor any written law, does NOT 'create them' once they have been declared in any acceptable manner as an 'unalienable right').

Enough said....any real remarks directly to my comments, Zenzoe? Or, does a woman's 'right to choose' have anything to do with the fetus/child's 'right to life' at any stage? Or, is it all 'conditioned' on whatever it is you claim 'conditions' it--without being really rational about it (like claiming 'harm' for the drunk whether he leaves under his own volition to be killed or is forced to stay against his will)? Again, 'conditions' are NOT the same thing as 'comparisons'--'conditions' gain the authority to override any rational thoughts--or interventions....it just now matters who or what 'gains the authority' to 'condition it' since they no longer have to be reasonable over it....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The straw man you present throughout, Kerry, is based on your presenting of my position incorrectly, reading into my opinions something that doesn't exist, so that you can carry on your arguments against a non-existent opinion. The following quote from the first page —my very first comment on this thread— should have stuck in your mind, but, apparently, it did not. You continue to claim I give no rights of life to a fetus at any point in a pregnancy. Read the last paragraph, the one I bolded and added italics, for your benefit, in case you scan it again, missing the point.

Quote Zenzoe:

In brief, the "pro-life" advocate bases his or her opinion on the false notions that life is the ultimate value and that the life of a fetus is superior to that of a woman. We may not consider any other values in our discussion other than those which apply to the fetus. Left out of consideration, for the anti-choice advocate, must be any weighing of costs and benefits to all involved. Most glaringly left out of their view is the actual personhood of the woman —rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness— compared to the potential, but not yet realized, personhood of a fetus. Instead, the anti-choice view equates the personhood of mother and fetus, which, in my opinion, wrongly states the reality, while fully undermining the equal status of women in society by denying them control over their reproductive destinies.

Denied control over her reproductive destiny, a woman suffers losses of freedom, autonomy, independence, equal opportunity with men to pursue education or career, and so on, that is, life. If you are not a woman, you might not fully comprehend the depth of despair such a denial represents. It is an injustice, plain and simple. And contraception fails too often to be a viable answer.

Abortion is a civil rights issue, not a moral issue. Having said that, my advocacy for abortion refers to unlimited access to abortion prior to viability; after that, the life and health of the woman must be considered first, while placing greater weight to the interests of the fetus than before viability. In my state, abortion after the first trimester is still regulated, as it should be. Prior to viability, the decision must be up to the woman, or we're in Naziland.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

You're 'strawman' argument appears not to be predicated upon what 'we' agree to--I made the same comment upon your direct questioning to me (notice that I answered your direct questioning but seem not to get the same courtesy from either you or the other condescenders present here before and now) as to when 'I' thought was the appropriate gestational age for elective abortions to be allowed--and I claimed to agree with Texas' law up until 20 weeks with the earliest gestation to survive outside of the womb being 20 weeks.

Our contentions seem to be made not on what the decision was but by how we reached such decisions. Mine is compared solely (and consistently) upon the issue of 'rights to the person' and such contentions as to when the 'right to choose' and the 'right to life' were appropriately compared and considered (and held as absolute against any and all 'conditioning' circumstances, otherwise--unless 'due process' removed them--usually in considering any impositions against another's 'individual rights')--what you liked to term as the 'contest of rights' in determining such issues (that you appear to not agree with). So, this whole so-called 'strawman argument' was then built on the contention that you had against anything that could be considered as an 'absolute right' (especially with regards to 'unalienable right' against any contention conditioned against it)--and how--and what is to be considered only as 'conditional' (even such proposed 'rights'--perhaps, equating them, as you originally seemed to do, with 'animal rights'--conditioned by whether the community saw the dog as a family companion or as the next meal--and 'humans' appear to have no different 'rights' than such animals--even in human communities with human politics)--and, I guess, only to be addressed as to why they are 'conditioned'--and, of course, who gains the 'authority' to 'condition them' (but many of your examples seem to me more based on that 'emotional fallacy' that you claimed to avoid). But, in the meantime, as examples that I posed to explain how much I see the extent of autonomy in ethics in conjunction with individual rights in politics with examples from my own profession contending with this, you proceeded to accuse me as abrogating the responsibilities of my profession (of course, 'conditioned' on how YOU proposed it) instead of answering the issues of autonomy and individual rights--where you see them belonging and to what extent do you hold their precedence as you claim not to be 'undervalueing individual rights'--forthrightly. In fact, I'm not quite sure how you could NOT be 'undervalueing individual rights' if you do NOT 'value autonomy' above any other ethical consideration....including 'professional' and what 'duties' that may contain (I am 'an individual' before I am 'a doctor')....

If that's a 'strawman' to you--and your whole 'position' was only based on 'viability'--then, why all these other issues around the 'conditioning of all rights' as if malleable to any such proposed effect as a persistent assault on my consideration of 'unalienable rights' against any such conditioning issues? Even as we come up with the 'same decision' on the issue? Does 'viability', in any way, represent a 'right to life'--or why at 'viability' to you? Any real 'rationale' other than that's where you place 'the condition'? Maybe just to 'throw in' wherever you like because you claim the 'authority' to do so? And, that's NOT 'undervalueing individual rights'? If you condition it against anything else other than 'due processing it' against someone else's 'individual rights', I think that you have undervalued it......and that's with you not even trying to address the ethical issues of autonomy in any connection you may or may not see with the political issues of individual rights as I've tried to ask you on more than one occasion.....but, you do like to put in the claim of 'strawman argument' when it's to your convenience to 'condition' your position with NO response.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:
Quote D_NATURED:

Kerry, I was going to respond point by point to your rant but I am beginning to see that there is no hope.

Then, I'll be brief. Can you answer the question: When do you say that the fetus/child has a 'right to life' that intervenes on the mother's 'right to choose', if ever?

You have an exaggerated sense of brevity. Furthermore, you have asked the same question over and over and I have provided the same answer over and over. The fetus has no rights to life when it is still occupying someone else's womb space, ever! It would also be wrong for the government to hold you down and remove a kidney so that someone else can have it to live. No human being has a right, at any stage of life, to the physical commodities of another human.

I disagree totally with Zenzoe's assessment that that is a 'strawman's argument'--it is not. It is more a question designed to 'establish our own boundaries' in this discussion on 'abortion rights' and 'fetal/child life'--and it also gets to the extent of autonomy and 'individual rights' as being discussed.

How can anyone have the right to exist within someone else's body? It's not a straw man argument, it's a science fiction novel. Fiction being the principle concept.

Quote The reason I think that Texas law is at least one rational one to determine this distinction is that Texas is approaching it from the 'all for one and one for all' perspective, I believe. And, if one life can survive to a normal life at 20 weeks, 'all lives' should be allowed that option. It's in the same vein that if one person gets that right, then all people should get that right. Government has no right to 'play favorites'. [/quote:

Correct! The WOMAN-not the government- has the right to play favorites. Who else deserves to decide that this little, larval human can stay and another one cannot? Who else's body is being invaded?

[quote]I don't have a problem with other states allowing elective abortions until birth (but recent federal law has interdicted on behalf of partial birth abortions since Roe vs. Wade)--or even other states confining it to 12 weeks. The point is that, once the 'right to life' element has been established for the fetus/child, the mother, now, has no 'right to choose' to abort and/or kill that fetus/child.

WRONG! That the bepenised (made up a word) decide they want control over this aspect of female life by arbitrarily defining when the woman's rights end, is not the same as the woman not having the right. That tyranny exists does not make it the new "normal" or undo any personal authority that humans deserve, as humans. Women WILL have abortions. Women DO have the inalienable right to the privacy of their own bodies. The only question is, will you really protect women or will you attempt to protect the tad poles.

Do you agree with that (that's one of Zenzoe's accusations of 'strawman'--but it goes right to the point of 'absoluteness in rights'--with 'right to life' holding priority when it exists--do you agree with that--and when?)?

Yes, I agree with Zenzoe. There is an absoluteness of rights. Women absolutely have the right to physical priority-to LIFE priority- at all points in the pregnancy.

Think, Kerry, about all the ways a fetus can be killed. Really, most of the things that can happen to anyone can happen to a fetus. They can be shot, stabbed, poisoned, OD, get kicked, you name it. But, for the fetus, any harm that comes to them also comes to their host. You can't stab a fetus without stabbing the mother first. You can't shoot or poison a fetus without it's mother also being shot or poisoned. In nearly every case, the life of the fetus is in every way dependent upon the life of the mother. Even in the case of viable fetuses, if the mother is shot in the head, the fetus is often lost. There is one way that a fetus can die that it's mother can't, though, and that's through abortion.Abortions are fatal to the fetus. The mother, when abortion is done right, gets away without injury.

You, and those like-minded Texans don't see the tremendous risk the woman endures for the fetus. She risks everything growing a fetus in her womb. I, personally, know a woman who died in childbirth. This very real risk comes with the responsibility and POWER to make a decision. That you regret that this tad pole is the unwitting victim of this woman's choice is your own mind trick being played. If you really tried, you could be happy to know that you live in a country where you will never be required, as a man, to allow any being to camp out in any of your body cavities. And, you can be happy that women have that same right. Any tad pole with any real level of conscience would want it that way. Let's consider what kind of world we want the wanted children to live in. Will they have the right to their own bodies or not?

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm

Currently Chatting

Who Should an Economy Serve?

The top one percent own half of all the world's assets. In stark contrast, the bottom fifty percent of the world owns less than one percent. According to the 2014 Global Wealth Report from Credit Suisse, global inequality has surged since the 2008 financial collapse. The report explains that while global wealth has more than doubled since the year 2000, the vast majority of overall growth has gone to those who were already wealthy.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system